AIMS: The Evolution sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is a power sheath frequently used for chronic lead extraction. In 2013, a novel type (bidirectional) of Evolution sheath (the RL type) was introduced. We evaluated differences in success and complication rates of the two types. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2015, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead materials. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 149 leads in 103 patients. The first 56 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and 93 leads were extracted with the novel bidirectional R/L type. The median age of the lead at the time of extraction was 6.8 vs. 9.1 years (P = 0.007). Complete procedural success was higher for the Evolution R/L (80.0 vs. 98%, P = 0.0004). Clinical success rate was 98 vs. 99%. There were no major complications and 6 (12.0%) vs. 2 (3.8%) minor complications (P = 0.153). We did not observe changes in success rates or complications over time, meaning that the difference cannot be explained by learning curve. CONCLUSION: Use of the novel Evolution R/L sheath vs. the original Evolution sheath was associated with significant higher complete success rates, without major complications and with a trend towards the reduction of minor complications. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The Evolution sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is a power sheath frequently used for chronic lead extraction. In 2013, a novel type (bidirectional) of Evolution sheath (the RL type) was introduced. We evaluated differences in success and complication rates of the two types. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2015, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead materials. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 149 leads in 103 patients. The first 56 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and 93 leads were extracted with the novel bidirectional R/L type. The median age of the lead at the time of extraction was 6.8 vs. 9.1 years (P = 0.007). Complete procedural success was higher for the Evolution R/L (80.0 vs. 98%, P = 0.0004). Clinical success rate was 98 vs. 99%. There were no major complications and 6 (12.0%) vs. 2 (3.8%) minor complications (P = 0.153). We did not observe changes in success rates or complications over time, meaning that the difference cannot be explained by learning curve. CONCLUSION: Use of the novel Evolution R/L sheath vs. the original Evolution sheath was associated with significant higher complete success rates, without major complications and with a trend towards the reduction of minor complications. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Saumya Sharma; Byron K Lee; Anuj Garg; Robert Peyton; Brian T Schuler; Pamela Mason; Peter Paul Delnoy; Mark M Gallagher; Ramesh Hariharan; Raymond Schaerf; Ruirui Du; Nina D Serratore; Christoph T Starck Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-03-02