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

Management of patients with transvalvular right ventricular leads undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the ESC endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society

Up to one-third of patients referred for transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) have a transvalvular pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead in place. Both the electrophysiology and interventional cardiology communities have been alerted to the complexity of decision-making in this situation due to potential interactions between the leads and the TTVI material, including the risk of jailing or damage to the leads. This document, commissioned by the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the ESC, reviews the scientific evidence to inform Heart Team discussions on the management of patients with a PPM or ICD who are scheduled for or have undergone TTVI.

Computed tomography predictors of increased transvenous lead extraction difficulty

BACKGROUND

The ability of computed tomography (CT) characteristics to predict the difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an evolving subject.

OBJECTIVE

To identify CT characteristics associated with increased TLE difficulty.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing TLE at the University of California San Diego from January 2018 to February 2022 were analyzed, utilizing the UC San Diego Lead Extraction Registry. Patients underwent cardiac-gated chest CT scans with intravenous contrast; all scans were reviewed by a single radiologist. Lead extraction was performed per standard institutional protocol with the initial use of a laser sheath and crossover to a mechanical sheath as needed. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time and mechanical sheath use, as markers of extraction difficulty.

RESULTS

A total of 343 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the study population was 63.8 ± 15.4 years; 71% were male. The mean lead dwell-in duration was 8.6 ± 5.7 years. In multivariable linear regression analysis, venous occlusion detected on CT was independently associated with higher individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), when adjusting for clinical characteristics such as lead dwell time. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, calcification and venous occlusion were independently associated with a higher need for mechanical sheath use during TLE (odds ratio:5.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.54-10.46) and (odds ratio:3.72, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.89-7.35), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing TLE, venous occlusion identified by chest CT is associated with increased fluoroscopy time. Patients with lead-associated calcification or venous occlusion detected by chest CT are each five and three times more likely to require crossover from laser to a mechanical sheath.

Associated factors and outcomes of crossover from a laser sheath to a bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath during transvenous lead extraction

Background

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE), a GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) cannot always be advanced over the lead, and crossover to the Evolution system (i.e., an Evolution RL sheath or Evolution Shortie RL sheath [Cook Medical]) is required. We aimed to determine the associated factors and outcomes of such device crossover.

Methods

This observational study included 112 patients who underwent TLE. The patients were divided into crossover and non-crossover groups. Outcomes and associated factors of crossover were evaluated.

Results

Overall, 57 (50.9%) patients required crossover to the Evolution system (crossover group), whereas 55 (49.1%) patients did not require crossover (non-crossover group). Clinical success rate was similar between the two groups (98.3% vs. 100%; p = 1.00). No major intraprocedural complications related to powered sheaths occurred. Multivariate logistic regression analysis results showed that dwell time of the oldest extracted lead (per year) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.36; p = .026), number of leads extracted per procedure (OR: 7.23, 95% CI: 1.74-29.99; p = .007), and use of a femoral approach (OR: 21.09, 95% CI: 2.33-190.67; p = .007) were associated factors of crossover. The cutoff for crossover was 7.7 years from the implant (sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 64.9%, area under the curve 0.80).

Conclusions

Both groups showed a high rate of clinical success. Switching to the Evolution system may facilitate a safe and effective TLE when a laser sheath does not advance despite laser activation.

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.

Transvenous lead extractions in a single high-volume center over 24 years: High success rate and low complication rate

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures can be complicated and are associated with a small but significant risk of cardiovascular complications. However, methods and tools vary among centers.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to the present the methods and results of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator TLE procedures in our center over a 24-year period.

Methods

From April 1997 through 2020, we attempted to extract 2964 leads in 1780 procedures and 1642 patients. We mainly utilized single sheath technique using snaring or mechanical rotational sheaths and steel sheaths when necessary. Difficult procedures were performed by an experienced cardiologist, and close supervision was emphasized. Most of the extractions were performed using local anesthesia with sedation.

Results

Median age of patients was 65.0 [interquartile range 20.00] years, and median dwelling time of leads was 5.0 [7.0] years. Clinical success was achieved in 1739 procedures (97.7%) and complete technical success in 2841 leads (95.8%). Clinical success (leaving <4 cm of the lead in the body and achieving the clinical goal for the patient) was achieved for 79 leads (2.7%). TLE failed in 44 leads (1.1%) and 41 procedures (2.3%) among 36 patients (2.2%). There were 23 cases (1.3%) of major complications, with only 1 death directly related to the procedure (<0.1%). In addition, 2 patients with sepsis died within the first 24 hours after the procedure. No caval tears occurred.

Conclusion

Single sheath lead extractions utilizing snaring or mechanical rotational sheaths were effective and safe in our high-volume center as performed by experienced operators.

A head-to-head comparison of laser vs. powered mechanical sheaths as first choice and second line extraction tools

AIMS

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.

Efficacy and safety of the new TightRail™ mechanical sheath for transvenous lead extraction: Results of a French multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the TightRail™ sheath for pacemaker/defibrillator transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

Multicenter observational study including patients who underwent a TLE with the TightRail™ sheath in five French university hospitals from September 2014 to January 2020.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-five patients (76% males, 71 ± 12 years) underwent a TLE procedure with the TightRail™. A total of 438 leads were extracted using the TightRail™, and the mean age of the extracted leads was 128 ± 85 months; of these, 344 (79%) were pacing leads and 94 (21%) were implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. The overall clinical success of the extraction procedures was 93%. Overall, 410 of the 438 leads (95%) were extracted (complete or incomplete removal). After multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found that lead age (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] for a 1 year increase: 1.11 [1.07-1.15], p < .001) and number of leads extracted (OR, 95% CI: 2.09 [1.50-2.96], p < .001) were the two independent factors associated with complete lead removal failure. Finally, there were 7 (3%) cases of major complications but no per-procedural death.

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale survey assessing the efficacy and safety profile of the Tightrail™ mechanical sheath. The clinical success rate was 93%, and the lead removal failure was dependent on the age and number of leads. We show a satisfactory safety profile in this cohort of patients from primarily low-volume centers with older leads.

Comparison between laser sheaths, femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths for lead extraction

Introduction

Efficiency and safety are important features in the selection of lead extraction tools. We report our experience with different endovascular techniques to extract individual pacing and defibrillator leads.

Methods

This is a single-centre study of consecutive lead extraction procedures from 1997 until 2019. A total of 1725 leads were extracted in 775 patients. Direct traction sufficed for 588 leads, and 22 leads were primarily removed by surgery. The endovascular techniques used in the remainder were a laser sheath (190 leads), the femoral approach (717 leads) and rotating mechanical sheaths (208 leads).

Results

The three approaches were comparably effective in completely removing the leads (p = 0.088). However, there were more major complications with the laser sheath than with the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths (8.4%, 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively). Therefore, the procedural result—extraction without major complications—was significantly better with both the femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths than with the laser sheath (p < 0.001). This result was confirmed after propensity score matching to compensate for differences between lead cohorts (p = 0.007). Cross-over to another endovascular tool was necessary in 7.9%, 7.1% and 8.2% of laser, femoral and rotating mechanical attempts, respectively.

Conclusion

All three endovascular lead extraction techniques showed comparable efficacy. However, there were significantly more major complications using the laser sheath compared to the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths, leading us to abandon the laser technique. Importantly, no single endovascular technique sufficed to successfully extract all leads.

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.

The valuable interaction among cardiac surgeon and electrophysiologist for transvenous rotational mechanical lead extraction

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath (Cook Medical,USA) is an effective and safe technique for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We reported our experience with the bidirectional rotational mechanical tools using a multidisciplinary approach highlighting the value of a joint cardiac surgeon and electrophysiologist collaboration.

METHODS

The study population comprised 84 patients (77%male;mean age 65±18 years) undergoing TLE.After multidisciplinary evaluation, a combined procedure was considered.

RESULTS

The main indication for TLE was infection in 54 cases (64%).Overall,152 leads were extracted with a mean implant duration of 94±63 months (range 12-421).Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, and lead removal with clinical success rate were 91.6 % (77/84),97.6% (82/84), and 98.6%(150/152), respectively.Eighteen combined procedure were performed in 12 patients (14%), such as "hybrid approach" (n = 2) or TLE concomitant to:1) transcatheter aspiration procedure for large vegetation (n = 8); 2) left ventricular assistance device implantation as bridge to cardiac transplantation (n = 1); 3) permanent pacing with epicardial leads (n = 6); 4) tricuspid valve replacement (n = 1).One major complication (1.2%) and 11 (13%) minor complications were encountered.No injury to the superior vena cava occurred and no procedure-related deaths were reported. During a mean time follow-up of 21±18 months, 17 patients (20%) died.They were more often diabetics (P = 0.02), and they underwent TLE more often for infection (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the finding that excellent outcomes can be achieved in performing TLE of chronically implanted leads by using the Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath and a multidisciplinary team approach involving both electrophysiologist and cardiac surgeon as first line operators. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Powered sheaths for lead extraction

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has seen a rapid expansion in the past 20 years. The procedure has changed from early techniques involving simple manual traction that frequently proved themselves ineffective for chronically implanted leads, and carried significant periprocedural risks including death, to the availability of a wide range of more efficacious techniques and tools, providing the skilled extractor with a well-equipped armamentarium. The reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with these new extraction techniques has widened indications to TLE from prevalent use in life-threatening situations, such as infection and sepsis, to a more widespread use even in noninfectious situations such as malfunctioning leads. Powered sheaths have been a remarkable step forward in this improvement in TLE procedures and recent registries at high-volume centers report high success rates with exceedingly low complication rates. This review is aimed at describing technical features of powered sheaths as well as reported performance during TLE procedures.

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

OBJECTIVES

Extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in low-volume medical centres with limited clinical experience and an evolving lead extraction programme may be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stepwise transvenous lead extraction (TLE) using a novel type of hand-powered rotational sheath as a first-line tool for extraction of chronically implanted devices in a single, low-volume centre.

METHODS

Sixty-seven consecutive patients undergoing a TLE procedure using the novel Evolution® RL rotational sheath as the first-line extraction tool between 2015 and 2019 at our institution were enrolled in the study. Their short-term and 30-day outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine devices and 131 leads were explanted. Procedural and clinical success rates were 92.4% and 98.5%, respectively. Two procedures were classified as failures due to lead remnants >4 cm remaining in patients' vascular systems. One major (1.5%) and 3 minor (4.4%) adverse events and no deaths were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE procedures, performed in a stepwise manner, using the Evolution RL sheath as a first-line extraction device and conducted by an experienced, surgically well-trained operator, offer excellent results with clinical and procedural success rates comparable to those, achieved in dedicated, high-volume institutions. Opting for optimal lead extraction approach in low-volume centres or institutions with evolving TLE programmes, a stepwise extraction strategy using the Evolution RL sheath by skilled operator may provide the optimal scheme with an excellent ratio between clinical and/or procedural success and complications.

Comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of Evolution® and TightRail™ mechanical dilator sheaths during transvenous lead extraction

BACKGROUND

Powered transvenous lead extraction (TLE) tools are commonly required to remove the leads with long implant duration due to fibrotic adhesions. However, comparative data are lacking among different types of TLE tools.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of two different rotational mechanical dilator sheaths in retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TLE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 566 lead extractions from 302 patients using TightRail™ (333 lead extractions from 169 patients) and Evolution® (233 lead extractions from 133 patients) mechanical dilator sheaths were performed between July 2009 and June 2018. Acute and long-term outcomes of study groups were compared. There is no statistically significant difference between Evolution® and TightRail™ groups in procedural success (93.9% vs. 94%), clinical success (99.2% vs. 98%), and major complications (3.8% vs. 1.2%), respectively (p > .05). In multivariate regression analysis, lead dwell time, the number of extracted leads, and baseline leukocyte count were found as independent predictors of procedural success (p < .05). During the median follow-up of 36.6 (0.2-118) months, all-cause mortality was observed in 73 patients (25.6% in the Evolution® vs. 23.1 in the TightRail™ group, p > .05). Chronic renal disease, heart failure, and coagulopathy were shown as independent predictors of all-cause mortality in multivariate regression analysis (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

TLE using TightRail™ or Evoluation® mechanical dilator sheaths was a safe and effective therapeutic option. Both mechanical dilator sheaths showed similar efficacy, safety, and all-cause mortality at acute and long-term follow-up of patients who underwent TLE.

Comparison between TightRail rotating dilator sheath and GlideLight laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the comparative analyses of TightRail rotating dilator sheath (Philips) and laser sheath for lead extraction.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TightRail sheath as a primary or secondary tool for transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of 202 consecutive patients who underwent TLE using either TightRail sheath and/or GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) in our hospital. The study population was divided into three groups: Group A underwent TLE with laser sheath only (N = 157), Group B with TightRail sheath only (N = 22), and Group C with both sheaths (N = 23).

RESULTS

During this period, 375 leads in 202 patients were extracted, including 297 leads extracted by laser sheath alone, 45 leads by TightRail sheath alone, and 33 by both TightRail sheath and laser sheaths. The most common indications included device infection (44.6%) and lead-related complications (44.1%). The median age of leads was 8.9 years. TightRail sheath (Group B) achieved similar efficacy as a primary extraction tool compared with laser sheath (Group A), with complete procedure success rate of 93.3% (vs. 96.6%, P = .263) and clinical success rate of 100.0% (vs. 98.1%, P = .513). Among 32 leads in which Tightrail was used after laser had failed (Group C), the complete procedure success rate was 75.8%. No significant difference in procedural adverse events was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our single-center experience confirms that the TightRail system is an effective first-line and second-line method for TLE. Further investigation is required to guide the selection of mechanical and laser sheaths in lead extraction cases.

Efficacy and safety of transvenous lead extraction using a liberal combined superior and femoral approach

Purpose

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE), the femoral snare has mainly been used as a bail-out procedure. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a TLE approach with a low threshold to use a combined superior and femoral approach.

Methods

This is a single-center observational study including all TLE procedures between 2012 till 2019.

Results

A total of 264 procedures (median age 63 (51–71) years, 67.0% male) were performed in the study period. The main indications for TLE were lead malfunction (67.0%), isolated pocket infection (17.0%) and systemic infection (11.7%). The median dwelling time of the oldest targeted lead was 6.8 (4.0–9.7) years. The techniques used to perform the procedure were the use of a femoral snare only (30%), combined rotational powered sheath and femoral snare (25%), manual traction only (20%), rotational powered sheath only (17%) and locking stylet only (8%). The complete and clinical procedural success rate was 90.2% and 97.7%, respectively, and complete lead removal rate was 94.1% of all targeted leads. The major and minor procedure-related complication rates were 1.1% and 10.2%, respectively. There was one case (0.4%) of emergent sternotomy for management of cardiac avulsion. Furthermore, there were 5 in-hospital non-procedure-related deaths (1.9%), of whom 4 were related to septic shock due to a Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis after an uncomplicated TLE with complete removal of all leads.

Conclusion

An effective and safe TLE procedure can be achieved by using the synergy between a superior and femoral approach.

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads via femoral approach using a gooseneck snare

BACKGROUND

The growing problem of endocardial lead infections and lead malfunctions has increased interest in percutaneous lead-removal technology. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) via simple manual traction (SMT) is the first-line therapy. When SMT is not successful, TLE from the femoral vein using a gooseneck snare (GS) with a radiofrequency ablation catheter (RFAC) may be an alternative option. The aim of our study was to evaluate the success rate of transvenous extraction of chronically implanted leads via the femoral approach using a GS with RFCA in cases of failure with SMT.

METHODS

The study included 94 consecutive patients who were referred for lead extraction due to pocket erosion and infection (71 patients) and to lead malfunction (23 patients). Initially, SMT was attempted for all patients. If SMT was not successful, patients underwent TLE using a GS with RFAC.

RESULTS

Leads were extracted successfully with SMT in 34 patients (54 leads), while 60 patients (83 leads) underwent TLE using a GS with RFAC. The mean indwelling time of the leads was longer in the femoral approach with GS (87.5 ± 37.9 vs. 31.3 ± 25.8 months; p < 0.001). The procedural success rate was 96.7% in the femoral approach with GS. A preceding implantation lead duration of >51 months predicted an unsuccessful SMT necessitating alternative TLE using a GS with RFAC with 86% sensitivity and 78% specificity (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transvenous lead extraction via the femoral approach using GS with RFAC may be an alternative approach to SMT with a high success rate, especially when the indwelling time of the leads is long.

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.

The COVID-19 challenge to cardiac electrophysiologists: optimizing resources at a referral center

Purpose

To describe how a referral center for cardiac electrophysiology (EP) rapidly changed to comply with the ongoing COVID-19 healthcare emergency.

Methods

We present retrospective data about the modification of daily activities at our EP unit, following the pandemic outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Italy. In particular, in the context of a pre-existing “hub-and-spoke” network, we describe how procedure types and volumes have changed in the last 3 months.

Results

Since our institution was selected as a COVID-19 referral center, the entire in-hospital activity was reorganized to assist more than 1000 COVID-positive cases. Only urgent EP procedures, including ventricular tachycardia ablation and extraction of infected devices, were both maintained and optimized to meet the needs of external hospitals. In addition, most of the non-urgent EP procedures were postponed. Finally, following prompt internal reorganization, both outpatient clinics and on-call services underwent significant modification, by integrating telemedicine support whenever applicable.

Conclusion

We presented the fast reorganization of an EP referral center during the ongoing COVID-19 healthcare emergency. Our hub-and-spoke model may be useful for other centers, aiming at a cost-effective management of resources in the context of a global crisis.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To identify reliable predictors of periprocedural intensive care unit (ICU) admission after transvenous lead extraction (LE) in a high-volume center.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

University tertiary-care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients undergoing LE at San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy, from 2005 to 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

LE procedures were performed in the electrophysiology laboratories with a cardiac operating room on standby between the end of the morning surgical case and before the start of the afternoon surgical case. Most procedures were conducted with the patient under procedural sedation and analgesia. After LE, patients were admitted either to the ward or to the ICU. Medical history and intraprocedural data were recorded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 389 procedures performed during the study period, 50 patients (13%) were admitted to the ICU owing to persistent hemodynamic instability or intraoperative complications requiring endotracheal intubation. Complete procedural success was achieved in 370 patients (95%), and the clinical success rate was 98.4%. No deaths were recorded. Five complications requiring emergency surgery (1.3%) were reported. Preprocedural right ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio (OR) 7.41; confidence interval 1.85-29.7; p < 0.01) and the need for general anesthesia (OR 12; confidence interval 1.49-97.06; p = 0.019) were independent predictors of ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative identification of patients who need ICU admission after LE is crucial to increase patient safety and decrease hospital costs. Severe right ventricular dysfunction and need for general anesthesia identify patients with low cardiac reserve who are at increased risk for ICU admission after the procedure.

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.

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

Aims

The Evolution sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is a power sheath frequently used for chronic lead extraction. In 2013, a novel type (bidirectional) of Evolution sheath (the RL type) was introduced. We evaluated differences in success and complication rates of the two types.

Methods and results

From 2009 to 2015, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead materials. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 149 leads in 103 patients. The first 56 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and 93 leads were extracted with the novel bidirectional R/L type. The median age of the lead at the time of extraction was 6.8 vs. 9.1 years (P = 0.007). Complete procedural success was higher for the Evolution R/L (80.0 vs. 98%, P = 0.0004). Clinical success rate was 98 vs. 99%. There were no major complications and 6 (12.0%) vs. 2 (3.8%) minor complications (P = 0.153). We did not observe changes in success rates or complications over time, meaning that the difference cannot be explained by learning curve.

Conclusion

Use of the novel Evolution R/L sheath vs. the original Evolution sheath was associated with significant higher complete success rates, without major complications and with a trend towards the reduction of minor complications.

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

Objective:

We have previously reported our successful approach for percutaneous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction using inexpensive tools, which we have continued over the years. Herein we report the results of the systematic use of a unique stylet, the lead-locking device (LLD), which securely locks the entire lead lumen, aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths in 54 patients to extract 98 CIED leads.

Methods:

This prospective observational clinical study included 38 men and 16 women aged 68.9±13.1 years undergoing lead extraction for device infection (n=46), lead malfunction (n=5), or prior to defibrillator implant (n=3). Leads were in place for 6.7±4.3 years. Infections were more commonly due to Staphylococcus species (n=40). There were 78 pacing (31 ventricular, 37 atrial, 4 VDD, and 6 coronary sinus leads) and 20 defibrillating leads.

Results:

Using simple traction (6 leads) and the LLD stylets (92 leads) aided with telescoping sheaths (15 patients), 96 (98%) leads in 52 (96.3%) patients were successfully removed, with all but one leads removed using a subclavian approach; in 1 patient, the right femoral approach was also required. In 2 patients, distal fragments from one ventricular pacing and one defibrillating lead could not be removed. Finally, lead removal was completely (52/54) (96.3%) or partially (2/54) (3.7%) successful in 54 patients for 96 of 98 leads (98%) without major complications.

Conclusion:

Percutaneous lead extraction can be successful with mechanical tools using the LLD locking stylet aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths through a simplified, safe, and inexpensive procedure using local anesthesia alone.

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads using Evolution® mechanical dilator sheath: a single center confirmatory experience

Objective

In recent years there has been an increase in clinical situations requiring lead extraction procedures of implanted cardiac devices. In our clinic, extraction procedures are performed with Evolution® mechanical lead extraction system. In this manuscript we aimed to evaluate our lead extraction procedures.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated lead extraction procedures carried out on 41 patients [30 male, 11 female patient; mean age 61.5 ± 18.5 median 67 (23–85)] between 2008 and 2015 using Evolution® system. Procedural success, major and minor complications are determined according to previously published guidelines.

Results

Mean duration of the lead implantation was 88.4 ± 62.5 months (6–240). Implanted device was a pacemaker in 27 (65.8 %) and ICD in 14 (34.2 %) of patients. Total 67 leads were extracted from the patients, 22 (32.8 %) were atrial, 30 (44.2 %) were ventricular, 14 (21.5 %) were dual coil defibrillator and 1 (1.5 %) was coronary sinus lead. Indications for lead removal were pacemaker decubitis and infection in 29 (70.8 %), lead dysfunction in 11 (26.8 %) and subclavian vein thrombosis in 1 (2.4 %) patient. Success rate with Evolution® system without using snare was 85.3 %. Clinical success rate was 97.5 % procedural success rate was 95.1 % and failure occured in one patient. Major complications occured in 2 (4.8 %) patients, 1 (2.4 %) was procedure related mortality. Minor complications were seen in 5 (12.2 %) of patients.

Conclusions

In our single center study it is shown that extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads of relatively long implantation duration and in an older age patient group may be successfully carried out using the Evolution® system. However due to potentially serious complications it is adviced to be done by experienced operators in centers with cardiovascular surgery backup.

Re-evaluation of transvenous lead extraction with modified standard technique: a prospective study in 229 patients

As new-type powered sheaths are expensive and unavailable, the standard lead extraction techniques remain the mainstay in clinical applications in many countries. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the clinical application of the standard lead extraction techniques and equipment, and make some procedural modifications and innovations. In our center, between January 2006 and May 2012, 229 patients (median, 66 years) who underwent lead extraction due to infection and lead malfunction were registered and followed up prospectively with respect to clinical features, reasons for lead extraction, technical characteristics, and clinical prognosis. A total of 440 leads had to be extracted transvenously by using special tools from 229 patients (male, 72.1%). Vegetations ≥1 cm were detected in six patients. Locking Stylets were applied for 398 (90.5%) leads. Telescoping dilator polypropylene sheaths and counter traction technique were used for 202 (45.9%) leads due to lead adhesion, and the mean implant duration of the 202 leads was longer than the other 238 leads (48.9±22.6 vs. 26.6±17.8 months; P <0.01). In addition, modified isolation and snare techniques were used for 56 leads (12.7%). Minor and major procedure-related complications occurred in three (1.3%) and four (1.7%) cases respectively, including one death (0.4%). Severe lead residue occurred in one case. Complete procedural success rate was 96.1% (423/440), and clinical success rate was 98.9% (435/440). The median follow-up period was 18 (1-76) months. No infection- and procedure-related death occurred in our series. Our data demonstrated that high clinical success rate of transvenous lead extraction can be guaranteed by making full use of the standard lead extraction techniques and equipment with individualized modifications.