Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Discussing the Prognosis and Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED): A Systematic Review

An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural success in a majority of studies.

Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotating and laser sheaths are both routinely used in transvenous lead extraction (TLE) which can lead to catastrophic complications including death. The efficacy and risk of each approach are uncertain. To perform a meta-analysis to compare success and mortality rates associated with rotating and laser sheaths.

METHODS

We searched electronic academic databases for case series of consecutive patients and randomized controlled trials published 1998-2017 describing the use of rotating and laser sheaths for TLE. Among 48 studies identified, rotating sheaths included 1,094 patients with 1,955 leads in 14 studies, and laser sheaths included 7,775 patients with 12,339 leads in 34 studies. Patients receiving rotating sheaths were older (63 versus 60 years old) and were more often male (74% versus 72%); CRT-P/Ds were more commonly extracted using rotating sheaths (12% versus 7%), whereas ICDs were less common (37% versus 42%), p > 0.05 for all. Infection as an indication for lead extraction was higher in the rotating sheath group (59.8% versus 52.9%, p = 0.002). The mean time from initial lead implantation was 7.2 years for rotating sheaths and 6.3 years for laser sheaths (p > 0.05).

RESULTS

Success rates for complete removal of transvenous leads were 95.1% in rotating sheaths and 93.4% in laser sheaths (p < 0.05). There was one death among 1,094 patients (0.09%) in rotating sheaths and 66 deaths among 7,775 patients (0.85%) in laser sheaths, translating to a 9.3-fold higher risk of death with laser sheaths (95% CI 1.3 to 66.9, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laser sheaths were associated with lower complete lead removal rate and a 9.3-fold higher risk of death.

Analysis of a 10-year period of lead removal in a referral centre

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to analyse all lead extraction procedures (transvenous or open surgery) performed in our centre and the short- and long-term follow-up data from these patients.

METHODS

All lead extractions performed from 2008 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed for patient characteristics and indications for device implantation; indications for lead extraction; techniques used; peri- and postprocedural complications and short- and long-term follow-up data.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (282 leads) were included [age 70 (62-78) years; 72% men]. The median follow-up time was 57 (25-90) months. Patients with lead explants were excluded. The most common indication for lead removal was infection (77%). A surgical approach was necessary in 14 patients (9%) owing to unsuccessful transvenous removal (n = 3), large vegetation in the lead (n = 4), concomitant valvular endocarditis (n = 2), other indications for open surgery (n = 4) and complicated transvenous removal (n = 1). Removal was tried for 282 leads. Of those, 256 were completely removed. Clinical success was achieved in 155 individual patients (98%). Complications occurred in 6 patients: 3 persistent infections, 1 stroke and 2 blood vessel ruptures. The procedure-related mortality rate was 2% (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Lead removal was associated with a high success rate and low all-cause complication and mortality rates. Emergency surgery because of acute complications was rare, and open-heart surgery was most frequently elective and not associated with a worse outcome.

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

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.

Risk Factors Predicting Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction

Objective

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the gold standard in the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED)-related complications. Knowledge of TLE risk factors is very important.

Methods

Clinical data from 1915 patients undergoing TLE at the Reference Center between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed. The effects of clinical and procedure-related factors on the development of major (MJC) and minor (MIC) complications and survival after TLE were evaluated.

Results

MJC were caused mainly by lead implant duration, presence of abandoned leads, multiple procedures preceding TLE, and any technical problem during TLE. Of clinical factors female gender and anemia increased the risk of MJC. MIC were reported in patients with the first implantation of CIED under the age of 30 and after sternotomy analysis of 30-day survival after procedure demonstrated a significant effect of clinical factors and lead dwell times, previous unsuccessful TLE, and MIC.

Conclusions

Efficacy and safety of TLE depend mainly on procedure-related factors. This knowledge is essential for preventing MJC and MIC. Mortality at 30 days following TLE is mainly associated with the clinical factors; however, there was also a significant effect of lead dwell time and periprocedural complications on the short-term prognosis of patients undergoing TLE.

Lead extraction using a laser system: Techniques, efficacy, and limitations

Transvenous lead extraction is becoming popular in Japan since the approval of laser extraction system in 2010. The laser system seems to be the standard method used by most physicians, owing to its efficacy and ease of handling. The efficacy and safety of this technology has been well proven in many studies and the data suggest that it can be used for Japanese patients safely. However, lead extraction can cause serious complications. Thus, it is important to learn the limitations as well as the basic techniques and efficacy of this procedure.

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

AIM

Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

METHODS

Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined 'experience studies'. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

RESULTS

When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiovascular electronic device leads

OPINION STATEMENT

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of 'lead management,' which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

Legal aspects in implantable defibrillator extraction

At the Institute of Legal Medicine in Chieti, a case of iatrogenic superior vena cava perforation was observed during laser extraction of an infected biventricular implantable cardiac defibrillator. The presentation of this particular case represented a starting point for studying the occurrence of similar complications in literature, since their knowledge and understanding should induce resolution of any organisation problems, aid in increasing physicians' training and impose the availability of cardiac surgeons during such operations.

[Laser sheath extraction of an infected pacemaker lead]

A case of pacemaker electrode infection with Staphylococcus aureus is presented. In order to avoid sternotomy, the right ventricular pacemaker lead, which had been implanted for 15 years, was successfully extracted using a laser sheath despite large endocarditic vegetations on the pacemaker lead. After completion of a 6-week course of antibiotics, the patient was discharged without any further evidence of infection.

Minimally invasive catheter procedures to assist complicated pacemaker lead extraction and implantation in the operating room

We report on percutaneous catheter procedures in the operating room (OR) to assist complicated manual extraction or insertion of pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. We retrospectively reviewed complicated PM revisions and implantations performed between 2004 and 2009 that required percutaneous catheter procedures performed in the OR. The type of interventional procedure, catheter and retrieval system used, venous access, success rates, and procedural complications were analyzed. In 41 (12 female and 29 male [mean age 62 ± 17 years]) of 3021 (1.4%) patients, standard manual retrieval of old leads or insertion of new leads was not achievable and thus required percutaneous catheter intervention for retrieval of misplaced leads and/or recanalisation of occluded central veins. Thirteen of 18 (72.2%) catheter-guided retrieval procedures for misplaced (right atrium [RA] or ventricle [RV; n = 3], superior vena cava [n = 2], brachiocephalic vein [n = 5], and subclavian vein [n = 3]) lead fragments in 16 patients were successful. Percutaneous catheter retrieval failed in five patients because there were extremely fixed or adhered lead fragments. Percutaneous transluminal angiography (PTA) of central veins for occlusion or high-grade stenosis was performed in 25 patients. In 22 of 25 patients (88%), recanalization of central veins was successful, thus enabling subsequent lead replacement. Major periprocedural complications were not observed. In the case of complicated manual PM lead implantation or revision, percutaneous catheter-guided extraction of misplaced lead fragments or recanalisation of central veins can be performed safely in the OR, thus enabling subsequent implantation or revision of PM systems in the majority of patients.