Transvenous extraction of permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads: Reduced procedural complexity and higher procedural success rates in patients with infective versus noninfective indications

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.

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.

Unexpected Procedure Difficulties Increasing the Complexity of Transvenous Lead Extraction: The Single Centre Experience with 3721 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should be completed, even when facing difficulties which have yet to be described. The aim was to explore unexpected TLE obstacles (the circumstances of the occurrence and influence on TLE outcome).

METHODS

The retrospective analysis of a single centre database containing 3721 TLEs.

RESULTS

Unexpected procedure difficulties (UPDs) occurred in 18.43% of cases (singles in 12.20% of cases and multiples in 6.26% of cases). These included blockages in the lead venous approach in3.28% of cases, functional lead dislodgement in 0.91% of cases, and loss of broken lead fragment in 0.60% of cases. All of them, including implant vein-in 7.98% of cases, lead fracture during extraction-in 3.84% of cases, and lead-to-lead adherence-in 6.59% of cases, Byrd dilator collapse-in 3.41% of cases, including the use of an alternative prolonged the procedure but had no influence on long-term mortality. Most of the occurrences were associated with lead dwell time, younger patient age, lead burden, and poorer procedure effectiveness and complications (common cause). However, some of the problems seemed to be related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and the subsequent lead management strategy. A more complete list of all tips and tricks is still required.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The complexity of the lead extraction procedure combines both prolonged procedure duration and the occurrence of lesser-known UPDs. (2) UPDs are present in nearly one fifth of the TLE procedures, and can occur simultaneously. (3) UPDs, which usually force the extractor to expand the range of techniques and tools, should become part of the training in transvenous lead extraction.

Occluded vein as a predictor for complications in non-infectious transvenous lead extraction

Background

The use of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) is steadily increasing, and complications include venous occlusion and fractured leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can facilitate the re-implantation of new leads.

Aims

This study aims to explore predictors and complications of non-infectious TLE.

Methods

This study involves a retrospective analysis and comparison of characteristics, complications, and outcomes of patients with and without occluded veins (OVs) undergoing TLE at our center.

Results

In total, eighty-eight patients underwent TLE for non-infectious reasons. Indications for TLE were lead malfunction (62; 70.5%) and need for CIED upgrade (22; 25%). Fourteen patients referred due to lead malfunction had an OV observed during venography. The OV group (36 patients) were significantly older (65.7 ± 14.1 vs. 53.8 ± 15.9, p = 0.001) and had more comorbidities. Ejection fraction (EF) was significantly lower for the OV group (27.5 vs. 57.5%, p = 0.001) and had a longer lead dwelling time (3,226 ± 2,324 vs. 2,191 ± 1,355 days, p = 0.012). Major complications were exclusive for the OV group (5.5% vs. none, p = 0.17), and most minor complications occurred in the OV group as well (33.3 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001). Laser sheath and mechanical tools for TLE were frequently used for OV as compared to the non-occluded group (94.4 vs. 73.5%, respectively, p = 0.012). Procedure success was higher in the non-occluded group compared to the OV group (98 vs. 83.3%, respectively, p = 0.047). Despite these results, periprocedural mortality was similar between groups.

Conclusion

Among the TLE for non-infectious reasons, vein occlusion appears as a major predictor of complex TLE tool use, complications, and procedural success. Venography should be considered prior to non-infectious TLE to identify high-risk patients.