Analysis of electrical lead failures in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction procedures

Utility of a multipurpose catheter for transvenous extraction of old broken leads: A novel technique for fragile leads

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction has been possible since the 1980s. However, complications during lead extraction, such as the distal end fragment of the lead remaining in the myocardium or venous system and injury to the veins or heart, have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine our method for complete removal of a separated lead, as extraction of long-term implanted devices is difficult using standard methods and may require additional procedures. The removal of leads with inner conductor coil and lead tip separated from outer insulation, conductor coil, and proximal ring electrode using a multipurpose catheter is reported.

METHODS

In total, 345 consecutive patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) from April 2014 to March 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Lead characteristics, device type, and indications for extraction were further analyzed in 20 patients who developed separation of the proximal ring electrode and outer conductor coil from the inner conductor and distal tip at the time of extraction.

RESULTS

Extractions were performed using an excimer laser sheath laser and a Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath (n = 15); laser, Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath, and Evolution RL (n = 2); laser and Evolution RL (n = 3); Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath and Evolution RL (n = 1); Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath only (n = 4); and Evolution RL only (n = 2). Twenty-seven leads implanted for more than 10 years had lead separation. A multipurpose catheter was used to protect the fragile leads from further damage. All leads were completely extracted.

CONCLUSION

All distal tip-to-proximal ring electrode separated leads were successfully removed using laser and other sheaths with the assistance of a multipurpose catheter, without any part of the leads remaining in the heart.

Mechanical extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads with a dwell time of more than 10 years: insights from a single high-volume centre

AIMS

To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a dwell time of >10 years (Group A) vs. younger leads (Group B) using mechanical extraction systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2011 and July 2022, we performed TLE in 318 patients. Forty-six (14.4%) extracted ICD leads in 46 (14.5%) patients that had been implanted for >10 years. The median dwell time of all extracted ICD leads was 5.9 years. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 31.8% of patients. Complete ICD leads removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (95.7% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056% and 95.6% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056, respectively). We did not find a significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (6.5% in Group A vs. 1.5% in Group B and 2.2% in Group A vs. 1.8% in Group B, P = 0.082, respectively). One death associated with the TLE procedure was recorded in Group B.

CONCLUSION

The TLE procedures involving the extraction of old ICD leads were effective and safe. The outcomes of ICD lead removal with a dwell time of >10 years did not differ significantly compared with younger ICD leads. However, extraction of older ICD leads required more frequent necessity for utilizing multiple extraction tools, more experience and versatility of the operator, and increased surgery costs.

Comparison of the performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers

BACKGROUND

Leads are often considered the weakest link in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, and lead dysfunction is a major concern for ICD recipients. The aim of this study was to compare the lead performance from three different manufacturers.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent ICD system implantation at Chiba University Hospital, Japan, between March 2008 and September 2017. The following leads were implanted in our center: Durata (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA, now Abbott) (n = 105), Linox and Linox^Smart (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) (n = 66), and Sprint Quattro (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 126).

RESULTS

A total of 297 ICD leads were analyzed. Failure rates for Durata, Linox/Linox^Smart, and Sprint Quattro were 0.20%/patient year, 0.95%/patient year, and 1.84%/patient year, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 4.8, 6.4, and 3.0 years, respectively. The cumulative ICD lead survival probability was 98.9%, 100%, and 87.5%, after 5 years, respectively. The survival probability over the entire follow-up time as measured by the log-rank test was lower for Sprint Quattro leads than for either Durata (p = 0.011) or Linox/Linox^Smart (p = 0.028). The difference between Durata and Linox/Linox^Smart was not significant (p = 0.393).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center retrospective study, the performance of Sprint Quattro was lower than the performance of Linox/Linox^Smart and Durata leads. Large-scale, multi-center studies or manufacturer-independent registries may be necessary to confirm or reject self-reported survival probabilities from manufacturers' product performance reports.

Effectiveness and safety of transvenous extraction of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads at single-center experience

The available literature lacks data concerning direct comparison of the effectiveness and safety of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads transvenous extraction. Certainly, additional shocking coil in superior vena cava adds to the amount of metal in the vascular system. Adhesions developing around the superior vena cava coil add to the difficulty of extraction of ICD lead if lead removal is required. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single- and dual-coil ICD leads transvenous extraction using mechanical systems. We performed transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 197 ICD leads in 196 patients. There were 46 (23.3%) dual-coil leads removed from 46 (23.5%) patients. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 25.0% of patients. The following extracting techniques were used: manual direct traction, mechanical telescopic sheaths, controlled-rotation mechanical sheaths, and femoral approach. Complete ICD lead removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = .41 and 99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = 0.41, respectively). We did not find significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (2.0% in single-coil vs 4.3% in dual-coil, and 0.7% in single-coil vs 0.0% in dual-coil, P = .58, respectively). There was 1 death associated with the TLE procedure of single-coil lead.This study shows that extraction of dual-coil leads seems to be comparably safe and effective to extraction of single-coil leads. On the other hand, it requires longer fluoroscopy time and frequent utilization of advanced tools.