Advertisement

Transvenous lead extraction in 1000 patients guided by intraprocedural risk stratification without surgical backup

  • Ziad F. Issa
    Correspondence
    Address reprint requests and correspondence: Dr Ziad F. Issa, Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Prairie Heart Institute, 619 E Mason St, Springfield, IL 62701.
    Affiliations
    Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Prairie Heart Institute, Springfield, Illinois
    Search for articles by this author

      Background

      Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Reliable preprocedural risk predictors to guide resource allocation and optimize procedural safety are lacking.

      Objective

      The aim of this study was to evaluate an intraprocedural approach to risk stratification during elective TLE procedures.

      Methods

      This is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent elective TLE of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead for noninfectious indications. The risk of TLE is judged intraprocedurally only after an attempt is made to extract the target lead as long as high-risk extraction techniques are avoided. TLE was performed in a well-equipped electrophysiology laboratory with rescue strategies in place but in the absence of surgical staff.

      Results

      During the study period, 1000 patients were included in this analysis (527 female (52.7%); mean age 61.5 ± 10.2 years). TLE was attempted for 1362 leads, with a mean lead dwell time of 73 ± 43 months (median 70 months; interquartile range 12–180 months). TLE was successful in 914 patients, partially successful in 10, and failed in 76 patients. A laser sheath was required for extraction of 926 leads (68%). Only 1 patient developed intraprocedural cardiac tamponade requiring emergency pericardiocentesis. None of the patients developed hemothorax or required surgical intervention.

      Conclusion

      At experienced centers, intraprocedural risk stratification for TLE that avoids high-risk extraction techniques achieved successful TLE in the majority of patients and can potentially help optimize the balance between efficacy, safety, and efficiency in lead extraction.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kusumoto F.M.
        • Schoenfeld M.H.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • et al.
        2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: e503-e551
        • Brunner M.P.
        • Cronin E.M.
        • Wazni O.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of patients requiring emergent surgical or endovascular intervention for catastrophic complications during transvenous lead extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 419-425
        • Sood N.
        • Martin D.T.
        • Lampert R.
        • Curtis J.P.
        • Parzynski C.
        • Clancy J.
        Incidence and predictors of perioperative complications with transvenous lead extractions: real-world experience with National Cardiovascular Data Registry.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018; 11: 1-12
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Love C.J.
        • Byrd C.L.
        • et al.
        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).
        Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6: 1085-1104
        • Merchant F.M.
        • Tejada T.
        • Patel A.
        • et al.
        Procedural outcomes and long-term survival associated with lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads.
        Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15: 855-859
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Kennergren C.
        • Love C.J.
        • Kutalek S.P.
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Carrillo R.
        Bridge to surgery: best practice protocol derived from early clinical experience with the Bridge Occlusion Balloon. Federated Agreement from the Eleventh Annual Lead Management Symposium.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 1574-1578
        • Barakat A.F.
        • Wazni O.M.
        • Tarakji K.
        • et al.
        Transvenous lead extraction at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade: complexity, safety, and outcomes.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 1807-1811
        • Alqarawi W.
        • Coppens J.
        • Aldawood W.
        • et al.
        A strategy of lead abandonment in a large cohort of patients with Sprint Fidelis leads.
        JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019; 5: 1059-1067
        • Deshmukh A.
        • Patel N.
        • Noseworthy P.A.
        • et al.
        Trends in use and adverse outcomes associated with transvenous lead removal in the United States.
        Circulation. 2015; 132: 2363-2371
        • Wazni O.
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Carrillo R.G.
        • et al.
        Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55: 579-586
        • Brunner M.P.
        • Cronin E.M.
        • Duarte V.E.
        • et al.
        Clinical predictors of adverse patient outcomes in an experience of more than 5000 chronic endovascular pacemaker and defibrillator lead extractions.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 799-805
        • Lewis R.K.
        • Ehieli W.L.
        • Hegland D.D.
        • et al.
        Preprocedural computed tomography before cardiac implanted electronic device lead extraction: indication, technique, and approach to interpretation.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020; 31: 723-732
        • Beaser A.D.
        • Aziz Z.
        • Besser S.A.
        • et al.
        Characterization of lead adherence using intravascular ultrasound to assess difficulty of transvenous lead extraction.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020; 13e007726
        • Sadek M.M.
        • Cooper J.M.
        • Frankel D.S.
        • et al.
        Utility of intracardiac echocardiography during transvenous lead extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 1779-1785
        • Afzal M.R.
        • Daoud E.G.
        • Matre N.
        • et al.
        RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction and impact on major intraprocedural complications (RISE protocol).
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019; 30: 2453-2459
        • Kancharla K.
        • Acker N.G.
        • Li Z.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of transvenous lead extraction in the device laboratory and operating room guided by a novel risk stratification scheme.
        JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019; 5: 174-182