Literature DB >> 28340095

Non-laser percutaneous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillation leads: a decade of progress.

Giulia Domenichini1, Hanney Gonna1, Rajan Sharma1, Sergio Conti1, Lorenzo Fiorista1, Sue Jones1, Maria Arthur1, Shaumik Adhya1, Marjan Jahangiri2, Edward Rowland1, Mark M Gallagher1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Non-laser-based methods are safe in lead extraction but in the past have been less effective than laser methods. In the past decade, new equipment has been introduced including the Evolution® Mechanical Dilator Sheath and the Evolution® RL. We sought to determine the impact of new equipment on outcome in mechanical lead extraction. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We considered 288 consecutive patients (age 66 ± 18 years) who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 522 leads in the decade to the end of 2014. Three groups were identified: Group 1 (pre-Evolution® period, 76 patients, 133 leads), Group 2 (original Evolution® period, 115 patients, 221 leads), and Group 3 (Evolution® RL period, 97 patients, 168 leads). The age of leads was significantly greater in Groups 2 and 3 (6.2 ± 4.4 and 6.1 ± 5.4 years vs.4.7 ± 4.5, P < 0.05) as was the proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads (27.2 and 28.9 vs. 14.3%, P < 0.05). The groups were similar in the number of leads extracted per patient. Despite the increasing complexity of the systems extracted, complete extraction was achieved in a progressively greater proportion of leads (88.0% in Group 1, 95.5% in Group 2, and 97.6% in Group 3, P < 0.05), and procedure duration was similar. The proportion of leads for which femoral access was required was greater in Group 3 (11%, 18/164) compared with Group 2 (3%, 7/211), P = 0.006. The only major complications were a post-procedure subacute tamponade in Group 1 and an oesophageal injury related to transoesophageal echocardiography in Group 3.
CONCLUSION: With current equipment, mechanical extraction provides a good combination of efficacy and safety. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2017. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evolution® RL; Evolution® mechanical dilator sheath; ICD lead extraction; ICD leads; Pacemaker lead extraction; Transvenous mechanical lead extraction

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28340095     DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  8 in total

1.  Wireless Endocardial Atrial (and Ventricular) Sensing with no Implanted Power Source: a Proposal.

Authors:  Ivan Corazza; Igor Diemberger; Christian Martignani; Matteo Ziacchi; Pier Luca Rossi; Alessandro Lombi; Romano Zannoli; Mauro Biffi
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 2.  Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends.

Authors:  Adryan A Perez; Frank W Woo; Darren C Tsang; Roger G Carrillo
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2018-08

3.  Transvenous lead extraction outcomes using a novel hand-powered bidirectional rotational sheath as a first-line extraction tool in a low-volume centre.

Authors:  Jus Ksela; Jan Prevolnik; Mark Racman
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-04-08

4.  Cardiac implantable electronic device lead extraction using the lead-locking device system: keeping it simple, safe, and inexpensive with mechanical tools and local anesthesia.

Authors:  Antonis S Manolis; Georgios Georgiopoulos; Sofia Metaxa; Spyridon Koulouris; Dimitris Tsiachris
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 1.596

5.  Results of the Patient-Related Outcomes of Mechanical lead Extraction Techniques (PROMET) study: a multicentre retrospective study on advanced mechanical lead extraction techniques.

Authors:  Christoph T Starck; Elkin Gonzalez; Omar Al-Razzo; Patrizio Mazzone; Peter-Paul Delnoy; Alexander Breitenstein; Jan Steffel; Jürgen Eulert-Grehn; Pia Lanmüller; Francesco Melillo; Alessandra Marzi; Manav Sohal; Giulia Domenichini; Mark M Gallagher
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 5.214

6.  Oesophageal perforation: an unexpected complication during extraction of a pacing lead. A case report.

Authors:  Lisa W M Leung; John Gomes; Giulia Domenichini; Mark M Gallagher
Journal:  Eur Heart J Case Rep       Date:  2019-02-06

7.  Transvenous lead extraction with laser reduces need for femoral approach during the procedure.

Authors:  Arwa Younis; Michael Glikson; Amit Meitus; Noga Arwas; Sharon Shalom Natanzon; Dor Lotan; David Luria; Roy Beinart; Eyal Nof
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Performance and outcomes of transvenous rotational lead extraction: Results from a prospective, monitored, international clinical study.

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
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.