Safety and success of transvenous lead extraction using excimer laser sheaths: a meta-analysis of over 1700 patients

AIMS

While numerous studies have demonstrated favourable safety and efficacy of the excimer laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in smaller cohorts, comprehensive large-scale investigations with contemporary data remain scarce. This study aims to evaluate the safety and performance of laser-assisted TLE through a meta-analysis of contemporary data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that assessed the safety and performance of the spectranetics laser sheath (SLS) II and GlideLight Excimer laser sheaths in TLE procedures between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021. Safety outcomes included procedure-related death and major/minor complications. Performance outcomes included procedural and clinical success rates. A random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted average of the evaluated outcomes. In total, 17 articles were identified and evaluated, including 1729 patients with 2887 leads. Each patient, on average, had 2.3 ± 0.3 leads with a dwell time of 7.9 ± 3.0 years. The TLE procedural successes rate was 96.8% [1440/1505; 95% CI: (94.9-98.2%)] per patient and 96.3% [1447/1501; 95% CI: (94.8-97.4%)] per lead, and the clinical success rate per patient was 98.3% [989/1010, 95% CI: (97.4-99.0%)]. The procedure-related death rate was 0.08% [7/1729, 95% CI: (0.00%, 0.34%)], with major and minor complication rates of 1.9% [41/1729; 95% CI: (1.2-2.8%)] and 1.9% [58/1729; 95% CI: (0.8-3.6%)], respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that excimer laser sheath-assisted TLE has high success and low procedural mortality rates. It provides clinicians with a reliable and valuable resource for extracting indwelling cardiac leads which require advanced extraction techniques.

Early Lead Extraction for Infected Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Infection remains a serious complication associated with the cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), leading to substantial clinical and economic burden globally. This review assesses the burden of cardiac implantable electronic device infection (CIED-I), evidence for treatment recommendations, barriers to early diagnosis and appropriate therapy, and potential solutions. Multiple clinical practice guidelines recommended complete system and lead removal for CIED-I when appropriate. CIED extraction for infection has been consistently reported with high success, low complication, and very low mortality rates. Complete and early extraction was associated with significantly better clinical and economic outcome compared with no or late extraction. However, significant gaps in knowledge and poor recommendation compliance have been reported. Barriers to optimal management may include diagnostic delay, knowledge gaps, and limited access to expertise. A multipronged approach, including education of all stakeholders, a CIED-I alert system, and improving access to experts, could help bring paradigm shift in the treatment of this serious condition.

The Electrophysiology Laboratory: Anesthetic Considerations and Staffing Models

The electrophysiology laboratory facilitates complex procedures on patients, many of whom have advanced disease processes and extensive comorbidities. Historically, nurses administered sedation as required, but in recent years a shift to anesthesiologist-led sedation has been promoted for patient safety and advanced therapeutic considerations. Uncertainty remains, however, regarding whether the electrophysiology laboratory is best staffed with general or cardiothoracic anesthesiologists. In this article, the authors discuss the anesthetic considerations of some commonly performed electrophysiology and structural cardiac procedures and the pros and cons of staffing with general or cardiothoracic anesthesiologists.