Mikhael F El-Chami1, Faisal M Merchant2, Anam Waheed3, Furqan Khattak3, Jad El-Khalil4, Adarsh Patel5, Michael N Sayegh6, Yaanik Desai6, Angel R Leon2, Samir Saba7. 1. Department of Medicine-Division of Cardiology-Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: melcham@emory.edu. 2. Department of Medicine-Division of Cardiology-Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Medicine-Division of Cardiology-Section of Electrophysiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lead extraction (LE) infrequently requires the use of the "bailout" femoral approach. Predictors and outcomes of femoral extraction are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of need for femoral LE and its outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LE at our centers were identified. Baseline demographic characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were ascertained by medical record review. Patients were stratified into 2 groups on the basis of the need for femoral extraction. RESULTS: A total of 1080 patients underwent LE, of whom 50 (4.63%) required femoral extraction. Patients requiring femoral extraction were more likely to have leads with longer dwell time (9.5 ± 6.0 years vs 5.7 ± 4.3 years; P < .001), to have more leads extracted per procedure (2.0 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 0.9; P = .003), and to have infection as an indication for extraction (72% vs 37.2%; P < .001). Procedural and clinical success was lower in the femoral extraction group than in the nonfemoral group (58% and 76% vs 94.7% and 97.9 %, respectively; P < .001). Major periprocedural complications (0% vs 1.3%; P = 1.0) and periprocedural mortality (0% vs 0.8%; P = 1.0) were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, femoral extraction was needed in ~5% of LEs. Longer lead dwell time, higher number of leads extracted per procedure, and the presence of infection predicted the need for femoral extraction. Procedural success of femoral extraction was low, highlighting the fact that this approach is mostly used as a bailout strategy and thus selects for more challenging cases.
BACKGROUND: Lead extraction (LE) infrequently requires the use of the "bailout" femoral approach. Predictors and outcomes of femoral extraction are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of need for femoral LE and its outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LE at our centers were identified. Baseline demographic characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were ascertained by medical record review. Patients were stratified into 2 groups on the basis of the need for femoral extraction. RESULTS: A total of 1080 patients underwent LE, of whom 50 (4.63%) required femoral extraction. Patients requiring femoral extraction were more likely to have leads with longer dwell time (9.5 ± 6.0 years vs 5.7 ± 4.3 years; P < .001), to have more leads extracted per procedure (2.0 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 0.9; P = .003), and to have infection as an indication for extraction (72% vs 37.2%; P < .001). Procedural and clinical success was lower in the femoral extraction group than in the nonfemoral group (58% and 76% vs 94.7% and 97.9 %, respectively; P < .001). Major periprocedural complications (0% vs 1.3%; P = 1.0) and periprocedural mortality (0% vs 0.8%; P = 1.0) were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, femoral extraction was needed in ~5% of LEs. Longer lead dwell time, higher number of leads extracted per procedure, and the presence of infection predicted the need for femoral extraction. Procedural success of femoral extraction was low, highlighting the fact that this approach is mostly used as a bailout strategy and thus selects for more challenging cases.