Modern approaches to transvenous lead extraction
https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-4012
Abstract
Aim. To show the effectiveness and safety of modern transvenous lead extraction (TLE) techniques used in cardiac surgery.
Material and methods. The study included 102 patients (men — 66, women — 36; mean age 58,3±1,7 years). Fifteen (14,7%) patients had infectious indications for TLE, 87 (85,3%) patients — non-infectious. Among the infectious indications (14,7%) were: isolated pocket infection of implantable electronic device (IED) — 13 (12,9%); pocket infection with bacteremia — 1 (0,9%); infectious endocarditis without pocket infection — 1 (0,9%). Of the non-infectious indications, 87 patients (85,3%) had: venous occlusion — 4 (3,9%); chronic pain at IED area — 10 (9,8%); device upgrade — 16 (15,7%); non-functioning (dysfunction, fracture) leads — 57 (55,9%).
Results. Using simple traction, 75 (50,4%) leads were removed. TLE technique was used in 56 (37,5%) extractions. Of these, telescoping/rotational mechanical dilators were used in 23 (15,4%) and 33 (22,1%) lead extractions, respectively. In 15 (14,7%) patients with infectious indications, 33 (22,1% of total) leads were removed. In 87 (85,3%) patients with noninfectious indications, 98 (65,8% of total) leads were removed. It was not possible to completely remove 18 (12% of total) leads.
Conclusion. Currently, modern TLE techniques have shown their high efficiency and safety. It is confirmed by large international studies such as ELECTRa, LExiCon, PLEXES, where success rate reaches 97,7% and mortality does not exceed 0,5%.
The successful application of modern techniques enlarged the list of indications and has been widely used in routine cardiac surgery.
About the Authors
D. G. Podolyak
B.V Petrovsky Russian Surgery Research Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
A. Yu. Kiprensky
B.V Petrovsky Russian Surgery Research Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
S. A. Mironovich
B.V Petrovsky Russian Surgery Research Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
References
1. Epstein LM, Maytin M. Strategies for transvenosus lead extraction procedures. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2017;8:2702-16. doi:10.19102/icrm.2017.080502.
2. Maytin M, Epstein LM. Lead extraction is preferred for lead revisions and system upgrades. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3:413-24. doi:10.1161/CIRCEP.110.954107.
3. Perez A, Woo F, Tsang D, Carrillo R. Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2018;7:3:210-7. doi: 1015420/aer.2018.33.2.
4. Buiten MS, van der Heijden AC, Schalij MJ, van Erven L. How adequate are the current methods of lead extraction? A review of the efficiency and safety of transvenous lead extraction methods. Europace. 2015;17(5):689-700. doi:10.1093/europace/euu378.
5. Bongiorni MG, Romano SL, Kennergren C, et al. The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of transvenous lead extraction outcomes. European Heart Journal. 2017;21;38(40):2995-3005. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx080.
6. Bongiorni MG, Burri H, Deharo JC, et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS [published correction appears in Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1167]. Europace. 2018;20(7):1217. doi:10.1093/europace/euy050.
7. Bohm A, Pinter A, Duray G, et al. Complications due to abandoned noninfected pacemaker leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2001;24:1721-4. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.01721.x.
8. Smith MC, Love CJ. Extraction of transvenous pacing and ICD leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31:736-752. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01079.x.
9. Van Rooden CJ, Molhoek SG, Rosendaal FR, et al. Incidence and risk factors of early venous thrombosis associated with permanent pacemaker leads. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004;15:1258-62. doi:10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.04081.x.
10. Roux J-FcF, Page P, Dubuc M, et al. Laser lead extraction: predictors of success and complications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30:214-20. doi: 101111/j1540-8159.2007.00652.x.
11. Varahan SL, Pretorius V, Birgersdotter-Green U. Transvenous lead extraction: a step-bystep approach. J Innov Cardiac Rhythm Manag. 2011;2:145-9.
12. Silvetti MS, Drago F. Outcome of young patients with abandoned, nonfunctional endocardial leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31:473-9. doi: 101111/j1540-8159.2008.01017.x.
13. Wilkoff BL, Byrd CL, Love CJ, et al. Pacemaker lead extraction with the laser sheath: results of the pacing lead extraction with the excimer sheath (PLEXES) trial. J Am Coil Cardiol. 1999;33:1671-6. doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00074-1.
14. Wazni O, Epstein LM, Carrillo RG, et al. Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 9;55(10):1055]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(6):579-86. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.070.
Review
For citations:
Podolyak D.G., Kiprensky A.Yu., Mironovich S.A. Modern approaches to transvenous lead extraction. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(7):4012. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-4012
Views:
781
Email this article 