Laser assisted extraction of pacemaker and implantable defibrillator leads

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.

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.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

Extracción de electrodos de marcapasos y desfibrilador mediante técnicas percutáneas

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is an increasing need for endocardial pacing and defibrillators leads to be removed. However, the procedure can be complex and it is not risk-free. We reviewed our experience between April 1989 and June 2006 with the percutaneous extraction of leads.

METHODS

In total, 314 electrodes were extracted from 187 patients. The leads had been implanted over an average period of 69.16 months (range 0.11-234.6 months, median 60.25 months). Some 115 were atrial leads, 196 were ventricular, and three were in the coronary veins; of these, 78 had been abandoned in the vascular bed.

RESULTS

Indications for removal were infection (26.1%), dysfunction (22.9%), erosion (25%), endocarditis (20.7%), and bacteremia (2.7%). Overall, 58.8% of patients were referred from other departments. In 96.8%, the electrodes were completely removed. Simple traction was used in 23.4%, and countertraction techniques (with and without radiofrequency current support) were used in 60.7%. For abandoned leads, a biopsy clamp was used in combination with countertraction (4.3%) or a femoral approach with a snare (10.1%). A sternotomy was required in three of the 10 patients with remaining electrode fragments. The complication rate was 4.6% (with major complications in 2.5%). Complications were associated with age < 60 years (odds ratio [OR]=5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-27.23), the presence of endocarditis (OR=4.97: 95%CI, 1.04-23.70), and right side implantation (OR=17.09; 95% CI, 2.15-135.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of cases, pacing and defibrillator leads can be removed without difficulty using modern extraction techniques. However, because there is a risk of complications during extraction, even though it is low, the procedure should be carried out in specialized centers with surgical facilities.

Incidence of Complications in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator Who Receive Additional Transvenous Pace/Sense Leads

BACKGROUND

Implantation of an additional pace/sense (P/S) lead is commonly used in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) to overcome P/S defects of integrated defibrillation leads (HV-P/S leads). No information is available about the clinical outcome and the incidence of complications in these patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed in 151 patients (125 male, age 54.9 +/- 13.6 years, LVEF 48.1 +/- 17.8%, CAD in 86 [57%], DCM in 24 [16%], ARVCM in 11 [7%]) who received an additional P/S lead between 1990 and 2002 (54 patients with abdominal and 97 patients with pectoral ICD system). Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

The average follow-up (FU) after implantation of the additional P/S lead was 43 +/- 27 months. In total 117 patients [77.5%] remain implanted; 22 patients died due to cardiac-related reasons. After a FU of 23 +/- 23 months, 43 patients [28.5%] experienced lead-related problems after implantation of the additional P/S lead: oversensing in 23 [53.5%], insulation defect in 3 [7.0%], fracture in 1 [2.3%], system infection in 4 [9.3%], and defect of the HV-P/S lead in 6 [14.0%] patients. The event-free cumulative survival of the additional P/S lead after 1, 2, and 5 years was 87.0%, 79.8%, and 59.4%, respectively (for pectoral leads: 89.6%, 82.0%, and 60.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of an additional P/S lead in case of failure of an HV-P/S lead is safe. However, it is associated with a substantial rate of complications during FU. Therefore, extraction of damaged defibrillation leads instead of implantation of P/S leads should be favored.

Laser Lead Extraction: Is There a Learning Curve?

Laser extraction of device leads offers an attractive alternative to countertraction and electrosurgical dissection sheath, potentially increasing efficacy and reducing complications. Wider adoption of this technology depends on relative ease of use. We report the experience of a new center to define the "learning curve." We performed 76 laser lead extractions in 75 patients (age 63 +/- 17 years, 59 male) from July 2001 to January 2004. Two experienced device implanters who were novice extractors underwent a 2-day site visit to a high volume extraction center for training. Lead extractions were performed in the operating room with immediate surgical backup. The indication for extraction was infection in 39 (systemic in 15), erosion or pain in 11, and lead related or debulking in 25. Complete removal was achieved in 139 of 145 leads (14 ICD, 131 pacemaker). Partial removal (<4 cm retained) was achieved in five leads (4%), and one lead could not be extracted. Complete success was 95% in the first third of patients, 94% in the second third, and 100% in the latter third. Fluoroscopy time fell from 19 +/- 22 minute in the first third of patients to 11 +/- 8 minute in the second third to 8 +/- 4 minute in the latter third (ANOVA P = 0.02). No major complications occurred. Local bleeding required minor left subclavian vein repair in two individuals. Symptomatic venous thrombosis occurred in 3 of the first 11 cases 1-21 days after extraction, but did not occur in the next 64 consecutive patients who received a 1-month anticoagulation regimen (27% vs 0%, P < 0.001). One patient developed venous thrombosis 3 weeks following cessation of warfarin therapy. Practice guidelines reasonably recommend appropriate training prior to independent performance of lead extraction. The current study suggests that experienced device implanters with appropriate operative backup taking a limited, but intensive training program can be safe and effective at lead extraction in a short time, in part a reflection of the improved technology.

Nonthoracotomy Implantable Defibrillator Lead Extraction:. Results and Comparison with Extraction of Pacemaker Leads

Extraction of pacemaker leads has been demonstrated to be successful and safe in experienced hands using current tools. Whether application of such techniques and tools yield similar results among patients undergoing extraction of nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads is unknown. This report describes a retrospective analysis of indications, techniques used, and outcome of patients who had a single ventricular nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator lead extracted at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Results were compared to a matched population of patients undergoing extraction of ventricular pacemaker leads from a national registry and to the experience with pacemaker lead extraction at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Successful complete extraction of ventricular nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads, in the absence of major complications, was achieved in 96.9% of attempts to extract leads from 161 patients. Clinical success was achieved in 98.1% of patients. Failure occurred in three patients. Two patients had major complications, including one death. The most common indication for extraction was infection (46.6%), followed by lead failure (34.2%). Procedure (140.8 vs 171.2 minutes, P<0.01) and fluoroscopy (9.9 vs 11.0 minutes, P<0.01) times compared favorably with those obtained from the pacemaker lead extraction database. Use of LASER did not influence the safety of the procedure or fluoroscopy times. Extraction of ventricular nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads using currently available tools is a complex but effective procedure. In experienced hands, excellent success rates should be achieved with a low incidence of complications.