Transvenous lead extraction with laser reduces need for femoral approach during the procedure

Introduction

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) trans venous lead extraction (TLE) is technically challenging. Whether the use of a laser sheath reduces complications and improves outcomes is still in debate. We therefore aimed at comparing our experience with and without laser in a large referral center.

Methods

Information of all patients undergoing TLE was collected prospectively. We retrospectively compared procedural outcomes prior to the introduction of the laser sheath lead extraction technique to use of laser sheath.

Results

During the years 2007–2017, there were 850 attempted lead removals in 407 pts. Of them, 339 (83%) were extracted due to infection, device upgrade/lead malfunction in 42 (10%) cases, and other (7%). Complete removal (radiological success) of all leads was achieved in (88%). Partial removal was achieved in another 6% of the patients. Comparison of cases prior to and after laser technique introduction, showed that with laser, a significantly smaller proportion of cases required conversion to femoral approach [31/275 (6%) laser vs. 40/132 (15%) non-laser; p<0.001]. However, success rates of removal [259/275 (94%) vs. 124/132 (94%) respectively; p = 0.83] and total complication rates [35 (13%) vs. 19 (14%) respectively; p = 0.86] did not differ prior to and after laser use. In multivariate analysis, laser-assisted extraction was an independent predictor for no need for femoral extraction (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.23–0.69; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Introduction of laser lead removal resulted in decreased need to convert to femoral approach, albeit without improving success rates or preventing major complications.

Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has continued to rise along with indications for their removal. When confronted with challenging clinical scenarios such as device infection, malfunction or vessel occlusion, patients often require the prompt removal of CIED hardware, including associated leads. Recent advancements in percutaneous methods have enabled physicians to face a myriad of complex lead extractions with efficiency and safety. Looking ahead, emerging technologies hold great promise in making extractions safer and more accessible for patients worldwide. This review will provide the most up-to-date indications and procedural approaches for lead extractions and insight on the future trends in this novel field.

Impact of ICD lead on the system durability, predictors of long-term survival following ICD system extraction

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) systems are considered as having higher risk of complication and shorter durability but reasons of this multifactorial phenomenon remain unclear. We aimed to analyze this problem in population of patients with ICD leads referred for lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

We have compared TLE indications, procedural results, and defined the long-term outcomes of TLE in patients with ICD/CRT-D devices (n  =  482, ICD (+)) with lead extractions in patients with standard pacemakers (n  =  1,402, ICD (-)). Demographic, clinical characteristics, and procedural outcomes were ascertained from single, primary operator registry. Long-term survival data were provided by the National Health Fund.

RESULTS

The ICD (+) subgroup had a significantly higher incidence rate of either infective or noninfective indications for TLE. The clinical success rate of extraction was 99.2% in ICD (+) versus 97.4% in ICD (-) (P  =  0.05) at a complication rate of 1.04% versus 2.14% (NS), respectively. In the median follow-up of 3.39 years, 142 patients from the ICD (+) subgroup and 303 from the ICD (-) subgroup died. The highest mortality rate of 41.1% was observed in the ICD (+) subgroup with infective indications. Infection, renal failure, diabetes, and age were the multivariate factors associated with increased mortality in the ICD (+) subgroup.

CONCLUSION

ICD leads remain more vulnerable, with respect to mechanical failure and their propensity to infection, in comparison to pacing leads. Their TLE is very effective at least complication rate, when performed by a highly skilled and experienced operator. However, long-term mortality after their TLE is high and is affected mostly by infections or patient-related factors.