Literature DB >> 32256885

Use of the new rotating dilator sheath TightRail™ for lead extraction: A bicentric experience.

Patrizio Mazzone1, Francesco Melillo1, Andrea Radinovic1, Alessandra Marzi1, Gabriele Paglino1, Paolo Della Bella1, Giosuè Mascioli2.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of the new bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath TightRail™ (Spectranetics) for lead extraction. METHODS AND
RESULTS: This is a bicentric prospective study that included patients who underwent a transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in two Italian centers (San Raffaele Hospital and Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital). From November 2016 to December 2018, 26 patients underwent a TLE procedure in which the TightRail™ was used. The new TightRail Sub-C was used in 20 (76%) patients to overcome the fibrosis between the vessel and the first rib. Median age was 69 (IQR 60.7-79.5) years. The indication for TLE were infection (57.7%) or lead dysfunction (42.3%). A total of 57 leads (range 1-4), 40 of which using the TightRail (range 1-4), were extracted. Overall mean implant duration was 98.2.0 ± 66.5 months. Mean age of the lead extracted with the TightRail sheath was 99.1 ± 70.2 months and was higher compared to that of the leads extracted manually (84.4 ± 60.3 months, P = .001). The overall clinical success was 100% and complete procedural success without the use of a snare was achieved in 98.3%. There were no cases of death or major complications and only two minor complications occurred. All patients were event-free at 6-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This initial experience using the TightRail™ suggests a high safety and efficacy profile for extractions in a wide range of lead age.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  lead extraction; rotational sheath

Year:  2020        PMID: 32256885      PMCID: PMC7132215          DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arrhythm        ISSN: 1880-4276


INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has increased in parallel with the number of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures due to either lead malfunction, infection, or system upgrade.1 A recent large European observational registry showed that TLE can be safely and effectively performed in high‐volume centers,2 but it can also be associated to serious and potentially life‐threatening complications.3 However, the removal of chronically implanted leads, which develop fibrous adhesions with surrounding vessel walls and tissues, could be challenging. To address this issue many extraction techniques have been developed including laser sheaths, mechanical sheaths, or electrosurgical dissection sheaths.4, 5, 6, 7 A bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath (Evolution RL, Cook medical) has proved to be extremely safe and effective with long implanted leads.8, 9 However, powered sheaths have been related to higher complication rates,2 and concerns can be raised about their use in case of recently implanted leads. The treated metal distal tip of Evolution RL allows the system to pass through adhesions but could also damage surrounding tissue. A new bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath TightRail (Spectranetics), with a more flexible shaft that provides high co‐axiality with the lead and a dilating blade that remains shielded until activated, is now available. Multicentric data about its safety and efficacy still lacks. The aim of this study was to report our preliminary experience with the TightRail (Spectranetics) sheath for lead extractions at two tertiary care Italian centers.

METHODS

Patients

This is a prospective study that included all patients who underwent a TLE in which the TightRail was used, either alone or in association with other extraction sheath, at two tertiary referral centers: San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) and Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital (Brescia, Italy). Indication for TLE included infection and lead malfunction. For each lead, the underlying type (active/passive fixation, single double coil catheters), duration of implant, and fixation modality were recorded. All patients provided a written informed consent before the procedure and the study was approved by the Institutional Committee of Human Research at our Hospital.

Extraction procedure

All TLE procedures were conducted in the electrophysiology laboratory by two skilled operators (PM and GM), with an experience of more than one thousand of extracted catheters each and ability to perform TLE with a wide range of tools, including laser and rotational sheaths, and performed under general anesthesia or sedation and ECG, pulse oximetry, and arterial blood pressure monitoring, with a cardiothoracic surgeon on standby.10 A subclavian approach was initially preferred; if the patient was pacemaker (PM) dependent, a temporary right ventricular active fixation lead was placed from the femoral vein. All patients underwent TLE with a standard stepwise approach, as previously described.11 At first, the leads were dissected free from the scar in the pocket, then simple manual traction or traction on a locking stylet (Liberator Universal locking stylet, Cook Vascular Inc and/or LLD® Lead Locking Device; Spectranetics), was attempted, avoiding disrupting the lead integrity. If unsuccessful, the new TightRail™ (Spectranetics) dilator sheath was used. In cases of excessive fibrous adhesions or calcification between the vessel and first rib the TightRail Sub‐C (Spectranetics), a shorter mechanical dilator, was used at the discretion of the physician. The bidirectional mechanical dilator sheath Evolution RL (Cook Medical) was used depending on the operator choice, when the targeted leads included chronically implanted leads (>10 years), considering that long‐standing leads (>10 years) are independent predictors of clinical failure.2 Free floating leads, remnants after extraction, were retrieved using a snare such as AndraSnare (Andramed GmbH) or Needle's Eye Snare (Cook Vascular) via either a right jugular or a femoral approach. The TightRail dilator sheath is composed by an inner and outer shaft and a handled drive mechanism (Figure 1). The inner shaft (drive shaft) is available in French sizes of 9, 11, and 13, and is able to rotate within the outer shaft. The rotary dilating feature at the tip remains shielded until activated, allowing a safe progression through the vessel. The stationary outer shaft is contained within a polymer jacket and is extremely flexible, enabling to remain coaxial to the lead. The handheld drive mechanism attached to the proximal end of the device is used to rotate the inner shaft. Rotation of the distal cam of the inner shaft causes dilation of the tissue and fibrous attachments surrounding the lead facilitating its removal. The bidirectional rotational mechanism should avoid the lead wrapping phenomenon, a possible complication of unidirectional rotational sheaths. An outer sheath can be used in conjunction with the device to support the device shaft facilitating an additional tissue dilation effect and serve as a conduit for reimplant.
Figure 1

The TightRail dilator sheath is composed by an inner and outer shaft and a handled drive mechanism used to rotate the inner shaft

The TightRail dilator sheath is composed by an inner and outer shaft and a handled drive mechanism used to rotate the inner shaft A shorter, stiffer, and more aggressive version of the TightRail, the so‐called Sub‐C, is available to overcome heavy calcifications under the clavicle, which are not uncommon.

Outcomes

All patients were monitored for procedure‐related complications in the operating room and during hospital stay. Clinical outcomes and adverse events were prospectively monitored at 30 days and 6 months by ambulatory direct visit or phone interview.

Definitions

Complete procedural success corresponded to the removal of all targeted leads and all lead material from the vascular space, without complication or procedure‐related death. Clinical success was defined as the removal of all targeted leads and all lead material from the vascular space or retention of a small portion of the lead that does not negatively impact the outcome goals of the procedure. Any event occurring while the patient was in the operating room and all events related to the procedure occurring within 30 days were classified as intraprocedural complications or postprocedural complications, respectively.12, 13

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are presented as absolute rates and percentages, continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (and interquartile range [IQR]), and compared with Student's t test or Mann‐Whitney or Wilcoxon tests, according to the normality of the data, verified by Kolmogorov‐Smirnov goodness‐of‐fit test. All data were analyzed with the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

The TightRail™ (Spectranetics) was first used at San Raffaele Hospital in November 2016 and at Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital in November 2017. From November 2016 to November 2018, 26 patients (26.9% females) underwent a TLE procedure in which the TightRail™ was used. Baseline population characteristics and complete patient details are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1

Population and explanted leads characteristics

Patients, n26
Clinical variables
Age, y, median (IQR)69 (60.7‐79.5)
Female sex, n (%)7 (26.9)
Chronic kidney disease, n (%)7 (26.9)
Creatinine clearance, ml/min, median (IQR)71.7 (55.5‐92.0)
Indication for implantation, n (%)
Bradyarrhythmias11 (41.6)
Ventricular tachycardia15 (58.4)
Indication for explantation, n (%)
Malfunction11 (42.3)
Endocarditis8 (30.7)
Pocket infection7 (26.9)
Extracted leads (TightRail), n40
Extracted leads (overall), n57
Generator, n (%)
Pacemaker10 (38.5)
ICD7 (26.9)
CRT‐D8 (30.8)
CRT‐P1 (3.8)
Fixation (TightRail), n (%)
Active10 (25)
Passive30 (75)
Mean time from implant (TightRail), mo, mean ± SD99.1 ± 70.2
Mean time from implant (overall), mo, mean ± SD98.2 ± 66.5
Number of leads per patient (TightRail), n, mean ± SD1.6 ± 0.7
Number of leads per patient (overall), n, mean ± SD2.2 ± 0.7
Lead type (TightRail), n (%)
RA15 (37.5)
RV8 (20.0)
RV ICD13 (32.5)
LV4 (10.0)
Dilator sheath diameter (TightRail), n (%)
11 mm22 (61.1)
13 mm16 (38.9)
Table 2

Patients list and clinical characteristic

PatientAge (y)DiseaseCrCl (ml/min)DeviceReason for extractionReimplantReimplant site
#153Complete AV block after surgical aortic valve replacement45Dual chamber PMEndocarditisYesContralateral
#266IDCM69CRT‐DPocket infectionYesContralateral
#374IDCM73CRT‐DLead dysfunctionYesContralateral
#485Sinus node dysfunction30Dual chamber PMEndocarditisNo/
#562AV block80Dual chamber PMLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#677Idiopathic VT29Dual chamber ICDPocket infectionYesContralateral
#784IDCM65CRT‐DEndocarditisYesIpsilateral (external PM)
#869Valvular heart disease82CRT‐DLead malfunctionYesContralateral
#968IDCM87Dual chamber ICDLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#1087IDCM33CRT‐DPocket infectionYesContralateral
#1137AV block110Dual chamber PMPocket infectionNo/
#1268Valvular heart disease36

Dual chamber

ICD

EndocarditisYesContralateral
#1382AV Block31CRT‐PInfectionNo/
#1458NIDCM100CRT‐DInfectionYesContralateral
#1581AV block66Dual chamber PMInfectionYesContralateral
#1644AV block90Dual chamber PMLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#1738Ventricular tachycardia107Dual chamber ICDLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#1879IDCM75CRT‐DLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#1973Sinus node dysfunction61Dual chamber PMSucclavian obstructionYesContralateral
#2086Ventricular tachycardia68Dual chamber ICDInfectionYesContralateral
#2169AV block71Dual chamber PMLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#2263Av Block110

Dual chamber

PM

InfectionNo/
#2361IDCM59Dual chamber ICDLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#2460IDCM98CRT‐DLead malfunctionYesIpsilateral
#2572AV block105Dual chamber PMInfectionNo/
#2672IDCM85ICDInfectionNo/

Abbreviations: AV, atrioventricular; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CrCl, creatinine clearance, calculated using the MDRD equation; CRT‐D, cardiac resynchronization therapy – defibrillator; IDCM, ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NIDCM, non‐ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy; PM, pacemaker; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; VT, ventricular tachycardia.

Population and explanted leads characteristics Patients list and clinical characteristic Dual chamber ICD Dual chamber PM Abbreviations: AV, atrioventricular; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CrCl, creatinine clearance, calculated using the MDRD equation; CRT‐D, cardiac resynchronization therapy – defibrillator; IDCM, ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NIDCM, non‐ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy; PM, pacemaker; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; VT, ventricular tachycardia. Median age was 69 (IQR 60.7‐79.5) years. Seven patients (26.9%) were affected by chronic kidney disease (median creatinine clearance was 71.7 [IQR 55.5‐92.0] ml/min). At preoperative transthoracic echocardiography evaluation, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 45.5 ± 12.5%. The indication for TLE were infection (57.7%), either endocarditis (30.8%) or pocket infection (26.9%), or lead dysfunction (42.3%). Characteristics of extracted leads and complete procedural details are provided in Tables 1 and 3, respectively.
Table 3

Procedural characteristics

PatientNumber of leadsTotal lead extractedLeads extracted with TightRailType of leadFixationCoilsOther techniques usedLeads age (mo)TightRail sheath (French)Use of snareComplications
#1222 (RA, RV)RAPassive//7713NoNo
RVPassive//77 No 
#2221 (RV ICD)RV ICDPassiveSingle/3413NoNo
RAPassive/Traction34 No 
#3331 (LV)LVPassive//12913NoYes (minor pneumothorax)
RAPassive/Evolution RL129 No 
RV ICDPassiveSingleEvolution RL129 Yes 
#4331 (RA)RAActive//4111NoNo
RVActive/Locking stylet41 No 
RVActive/Traction29 No 
#5222 (RA, RV)RAActive//4911NoNo
RVActive//49 No 
#6332 (RA, RV)RAPassive//8913NoNo
RV ICDPassiveDual/8913No 
RV ICDActiveSingleTraction3 No 
#7222 (RV ICD, LV)RV ICDActiveSingle/2411NoNo
LVPassive//2411No 
#8443 (RA, RV ICD, RV, LV)RAPassive/Evolution RL157 NoYes
RVPassive//15711No(hematoma)
RV ICDActiveSingle/2511No 
LVPassive//2511No 
#9222 (RA, RV ICD)RAPassive//6213NoNo
RV ICDActiveSingle/6213No 
#10333 (RA, RV ICD, LV)RAPassive//5113NoNo
RV ICDPassiveDual/5113No 
LVPassive//5113No 
#11221 (RA)RAPassive//16411NoNo
RVPassive/Evolution RL16411No 
#12222 (RA, RV ICD)RAPassive//5811NoNo
RV ICDActiveSingle/5813No 
#13331 (RA)RAPassive//19611NoNo
RVPassive/Manual196 No 
LVPassive/Manual196 No 
#14331 (RV ICD)RV ICDActiveSingle/6811No 
RAActive/Manual68 No 
LVPassive/Manual68 NoNo
#15221 (RV)RVPassive//8111NoNo
RAPassive/Manual81 No 
#16211 (RA)RAPassive//29111NoNo
#17221 (RV ICD)RV ICDPassiveSingle/22711NoNo
RAPassive/Manual100 No 
#18321 (RA)RAPassive//10911NoNo
LVPassive/Manual109 No 
#19221 (RA)RAPassive//32811NoNo
RVActive/Manual45 No 
#20222 (RA, RV ICD)RAPassive//17011NoNo
RV ICDPassiveSingle/17011No 
#21222 (RA, RV)RAActive//8413NoNo
RVActive//8413No 
#22222 (RA, RV)RAPassive//11311NoNo
RVPassive//11311No 
#23111 (RV ICD)RV ICDPassiveSingle/15713NoNo
#24311 (RV ICD)RV ICDPassiveSingle/3611NoNo
#25221 (RV)RVPassive//8411NoNo
RAPassive/Manual84   
#26222 (RA, RV ICD)RV ICDPassiveSingle/10313NoNo
RAPassive//10313NoNo

Abbreviations: ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LV, left ventricular lead; RA, right atrial lead; RV, right ventricular lead.

Procedural characteristics Abbreviations: ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LV, left ventricular lead; RA, right atrial lead; RV, right ventricular lead. The extracted device was a dual chamber PM in 10 (38.5%) cases, dual chamber ICD in 7 (26.9%) cases, CRT‐D in 8 (30.8%), and CRT‐P in the remaining 1 case. A total of 57 leads (range 1‐4), 40 of which using the TightRail (range 1‐4), were extracted; of these, 42 (73.7%) were pacing leads and 15 leads were ICD (13 single coil vs 2 dual coil). Among leads extracted with TightRail, 15 (37.5%) were right atrium leads, 8 (20.0%) were right ventricular pacing leads, 13 (32.5%) were right ventricular ICD leads and the remaining 4 (10.0%) were resynchronizing left ventricular lead. Overall mean implant duration was 98.2.0 ± 66.5 (range 24‐328) months. Mean age of the lead extracted with the TightRail sheath was 99.1 ± 70.2 (range 24‐328) months and was higher compared to that of the leads extracted manually (84.4 ± 60.3 months, P = .001). Twenty‐two patients underwent device reimplant in a second procedure during the same hospitalization; after collegial discussion, reimplantation was not performed in four patients. All the leads were extracted using initially the subclavian approach. Twenty patients (76%), because of adherence between the vessel and the first rib, were initially approached with the TightRail Sub‐C. The overall clinical success was 100%. Complete procedural success without the use of a snare was achieved in 98.3%. In one case (patient #11), the Evolution RL was needed to complete the extraction of a right ventricular pacing lead after a first ineffective attempt with the TightRail, while in other two (#3, #8) the Evolution RL was used to complete the extraction under operator's choice. There were no cases of death or major complications and only two minor complications occurred: small pneumothorax treated conservatively in patient #3 and a hematoma of the device pocket in patient #8 who was on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation. No patient required admission to the internal care unit after the procedure. Complete follow‐up was available for all patients. The 30‐day and 6‐month survival rate were 100%. Patient #1 underwent successful aortic valve substitution 1 month after TLE. All patients were event‐free at 6‐month follow‐up.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective multicentric study assessing the safety and efficacy of the new bidirectional rotating dilator sheath TightRail™ (Spectranetics). In our preliminary experience, we demonstrated that it is an effective tool for extracting chronic implanted leads (up to 227 months for right ventricular leads, 129 months for left ventricular leads) when both manual traction or the use of a locking stylet are ineffective, with excellent results at 6‐month follow‐up. Only two single‐center experiences with the TightRail™ have been reported: Aytemir used it in 23 patients with a median time from implantation of 72 months14; compared to this report, in our multicentric experience the mean lead age was higher; Sawhney described successful TLE with TightRail™ in 3 patients.15 Compared to these previous reports, in our multicentric experience the median lead age was higher, further confirming the possibility to use the TightRail™ also in long‐standing, chronically implanted leads. Moreover, we are the first to describe the use of TightRail Sub‐C to exceed the excessive fibrous adhesions or calcification between the vessel and first rib that was previously considered a critical issue about the use of TightRail for lead extraction. Amount of evidence is available about the new Evolution RL mechanical sheath that has proven to be safe and effective for long‐standing lead extraction in single and multicentric registries.8, 16 The use of powered sheaths has been shown to be associated with higher procedure related major complications.2 However, the TightRail, because of its technical characteristics, has a theoretically safer profile compared to other mechanical extraction sheaths, as Evolution. The extreme flexibility of the outer shaft should allow a higher coaxiality to the lead, reducing the risk of lead fracture. The dilating blade that remains hidden until activated, should guarantee minor possibility of damage to vessel walls and surrounding structures during catheter advancement. The Laser system, differently from mechanical sheath (Evolution and TightRail) uses an excimer laser that acts by breaking intracellular tissue bonds, vaporizing fibrotic sheaths surrounding targeted leads, while not damaging other leads. Compared to laser sheath in a study on 121 patients, the Evolution exhibited acceptably high levels of procedural and clinical success, although additional use of snare was required.11 However, the two techniques may be considered equally effective for TLE. Actually, direct comparison between the three techniques are not available yet and further studies are warranted to provide insights into this setting and determine if there may be one or more technique suitable in a specific subset of patients. Safety is a main issue in TLE, and the TightRail, with his potentially safe profile, allowed us to achieve a successful and safe extraction in patients with a wide range of lead age. In only one case (patient #11), the TightRail was ineffective in extracting a long‐standing lead (164 months) due to excessive fibrosis and the Evolution RL was needed to complete the extraction of a right ventricular pacing lead. As shown in a recent large European observational study, lead extraction procedure attempted in low‐volume centers (<30 procedures/y) was an independent predictor of clinical failure and all‐cause mortality.2 It is therefore advisable that TLE procedures be performed in centers with suitable volume and operators' experience. However, considering the increasing need for TLE procedures in the near future, the request could overcome the volume capacity of high‐experienced centers. It would be appropriate for less‐experienced centers to refer high‐risk patients with potentially complicated TLE to high‐experienced centers and operators and attempt at first TLE in low‐risk patients. The safety and feasibility of this strategy warrant further investigations. Our study is a first step toward this opportunity, showing that TightRail™ (Spectranetics), with its extremely safe profile, is a valid additional tool that could be used for TLE with excellent outcomes at midterm follow‐up.

Limitations

The main limitations are represented by the small size of the population studied and by the lack of comparison with other mechanical dilator sheaths. Larger scale randomized studies should be conducted in the future to identify appropriate decision‐making and therapeutic strategies to deal with the increasing request of TLE procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial experience using the TightRail suggests a high safety and efficacy profile for lead extraction when initial fibrous adherence is present.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interests for this article.

INFORMED CONSENT

All patients provided informed consent for data collection and the study was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.
  15 in total

1.  Pacemaker lead extraction with the laser sheath: results of the pacing lead extraction with the excimer sheath (PLEXES) trial.

Authors:  B L Wilkoff; C L Byrd; C J Love; D L Hayes; T D Sellers; R Schaerf; V Parsonnet; L M Epstein; R A Sorrentino; C Reiser
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Pathways for training and accreditation for transvenous lead extraction: a European Heart Rhythm Association position paper.

Authors:  J C Deharo; M G Bongiorni; A Rozkovec; F Bracke; P Defaye; I Fernandez-Lozano; P G Golzio; B Hansky; C Kennergren; A S Manolis; P Mitkowski; E S Platou
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 5.214

3.  Lead extraction is preferred for lead revisions and system upgrades: when less is more.

Authors:  Melanie Maytin; Laurence M Epstein; Charles A Henrikson
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-08

4.  Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA).

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Charles J Love; Charles L Byrd; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Roger G Carrillo; George H Crossley; Laurence M Epstein; Richard A Friedman; Charles E H Kennergren; Przemyslaw Mitkowski; Raymond H M Schaerf; Oussama M Wazni
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  Predictors of Intensive Care Unit Admission in Patients Undergoing Lead Extraction: A 10-Year Observational Study in a High-Volume Center.

Authors:  Fabrizio Monaco; Nora Di Tomasso; Giovanni Landoni; Pasquale Nardelli; Andrea Radinovic; Francesco Melillo; Giuseppe D'Angelo; Paolo Della Bella; Alberto Zangrillo; Patrizio Mazzone
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 2.628

6.  Laser-assisted lead extraction: the European experience.

Authors:  C Kennergren; C A Bucknall; C Butter; R Charles; J Fuhrer; M Grosfeld; R Tavernier; T B Morgado; P Mortensen; V Paul; P Richter; T Schwartz; F Wellens
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 5.214

7.  Advanced techniques for chronic lead extraction: heading from the laser towards the evolution system.

Authors:  Patrizio Mazzone; Dimitris Tsiachris; Alessandra Marzi; Giuseppe Ciconte; Gabriele Paglino; Nicoleta Sora; Simone Gulletta; Pasquale Vergara; Paolo Della Bella
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 5.214

8.  Success and complication rates of lead extraction with the first- vs. the second-generation Evolution mechanical sheath.

Authors:  Olivier A Witte; Ahmet Adiyaman; Jaap Jan J Smit; Anand R Ramdat Misier; Arif Elvan; Abdul Ghani; Peter Paul H M Delnoy
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 5.214

9.  The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of Transvenous Lead Extraction Outcomes.

Authors:  Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Charles Kennergren; Christian Butter; Jean Claude Deharo; Andrzej Kutarski; Christopher A Rinaldi; Simone L Romano; Aldo P Maggioni; Maryna Andarala; Angelo Auricchio; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2017-10-21       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction.

Authors:  Robert G Hauser; William T Katsiyiannis; Charles C Gornick; Adrian K Almquist; Linda M Kallinen
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 5.214

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads.

Authors:  Simon Pecha; Tibor Ziegelhoeffer; Yalin Yildirim; Yeong-Hoon Choi; Stephan Willems; Hermann Reichenspurner; Heiko Burger; Samer Hakmi
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-04-08

3.  Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Adhesive Thrombo-Fibrotic Lead Encapsulations (TFLE) of Pacemaker and ICD Leads in Arrhythmia Patients-A Post Mortem Study.

Authors:  Jonas Keiler; Marko Schulze; Ronja Dreger; Armin Springer; Alper Öner; Andreas Wree
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-11-30

4.  Transvenous lead extraction using the TightRail mechanical rotating dilator sheath for Asian patients.

Authors:  Ji-Hoon Choi; Seung-Jung Park; Hye Ree Kim; Hee-Jin Kwon; Kyoung-Min Park; Young Keun On; June Soo Kim; Ju Youn Kim; Won Young Jung
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Tricuspid insufficiency after cardiac-implantable electronic device placement.

Authors:  Nismat Javed; Raafe Iqbal; Jahanzeb Malik; Ghazanfar Rana; Waheed Akhtar; Syed Muhammad Jawad Zaidi
Journal:  J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect       Date:  2021-11-15

6.  Working on the dirty side-the ipsilateral subclavian access for temporary pacing after lead extraction.

Authors:  David Zweiker; Francesco Melillo; Giuseppe D'Angelo; Andrea Radinovic; Alessandra Marzi; Lorenzo Cianfanelli; Savino Altizio; Luca R Limite; Gabriele Paglino; Antonio Frontera; Kenzaburo Nakajima; Luigia Brugliera; Lorenzo Malatino; Paolo Della Bella; Patrizio Mazzone
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2022-02-04

7.  Transvenous Lead Extraction without Procedure-Related Deaths in 1000 Consecutive Patients: A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Paweł Stefańczyk; Dorota Nowosielecka; Łukasz Tułecki; Konrad Tomków; Anna Polewczyk; Wojciech Jacheć; Andrzej Kleinrok; Wojciech Borzęcki; Andrzej Kutarski
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2021-08-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.