Transvenous Lead Extraction via the Inferior Approach Using a Gooseneck Snare versus Simple Manual Traction

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads via femoral approach using a gooseneck snare

BACKGROUND

The growing problem of endocardial lead infections and lead malfunctions has increased interest in percutaneous lead-removal technology. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) via simple manual traction (SMT) is the first-line therapy. When SMT is not successful, TLE from the femoral vein using a gooseneck snare (GS) with a radiofrequency ablation catheter (RFAC) may be an alternative option. The aim of our study was to evaluate the success rate of transvenous extraction of chronically implanted leads via the femoral approach using a GS with RFCA in cases of failure with SMT.

METHODS

The study included 94 consecutive patients who were referred for lead extraction due to pocket erosion and infection (71 patients) and to lead malfunction (23 patients). Initially, SMT was attempted for all patients. If SMT was not successful, patients underwent TLE using a GS with RFAC.

RESULTS

Leads were extracted successfully with SMT in 34 patients (54 leads), while 60 patients (83 leads) underwent TLE using a GS with RFAC. The mean indwelling time of the leads was longer in the femoral approach with GS (87.5 ± 37.9 vs. 31.3 ± 25.8 months; p < 0.001). The procedural success rate was 96.7% in the femoral approach with GS. A preceding implantation lead duration of >51 months predicted an unsuccessful SMT necessitating alternative TLE using a GS with RFAC with 86% sensitivity and 78% specificity (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transvenous lead extraction via the femoral approach using GS with RFAC may be an alternative approach to SMT with a high success rate, especially when the indwelling time of the leads is long.

Lead Removal Without Extraction Tools: A Single-Center Experience

Introduction

Indications for cardiac devices have been increasing as well as the need for lead extractions as a result of infections, failed leads and device recalls. Powered laser sheaths, with a global trend towards the in-creasingly technological tools, meant to improve the procedure’s outcome but have economic implications.

Objective

The aim of this study is to demonstrate the experience of a Bra-zilian center that uses simple manual traction in most lead removals per-formed annually, questioning the real need for expensive and technically challenging new devices.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 35 patients who had a transvenous lead extraction in the period of a year between January 1998 and October 2014 at Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes, in Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. Data were collected through a records review. They were evaluated based on age, type of device, dwelling time, indication for removal, technique used and immediate outcomes.

Results

The median dwelling time of the devices was 46.22 months. Infec-tion, lead fracture and device malfunction were the most common indica-tions. Simple traction was the method of choice, used in 88.9% of the pro-cedures. Manual traction presented high success rates, resulting in com-plete removal without complications in 90% of the cases.

Conclusion

This article suggests that lead extraction by simple manual traction can still be performed effectively in countries with economic diffi-culties as a first attempt, leaving auxiliary tools for a second attempt in case of failure or contraindications to the simple manual traction technique.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Clinical Commentary for Anesthesiologists

With increasing use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, the need for lead extractions has increased to an annual volume of more than 10,000 extractions worldwide. This article provides a focused clinical commentary on the perioperative management, identification, and treatment of life-threatening complications associated with lead extractions. In addition, a summary of indications, techniques, and lead extraction complications is provided. Although uncommon, lead extractions are associated with a consistent rate of major procedure-related complications and mortality. Major life-threatening complications include vascular laceration, cardiac avulsion, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, and cardiac arrest. Comprehensive preoperative risk assessment and adequate planning and preparedness are crucial to decreasing all procedure-related adverse events. The location of the procedure (electrophysiology suite v hybrid operating room) and the nature of cardiac surgical backup are determined after meticulous risk stratification. In addition to decisions on vascular access, invasive monitoring, and modality of rhythm support, transesophageal echocardiography plays a crucial role in early diagnosis, timely management, and potential prevention of these complications.