Transvenous lead extraction at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade: Complexity, safety, and outcomes

被引:24
作者
Barakat, Amr F. [1 ]
Wazni, Oussama M. [2 ]
Tarakji, Khaldoun [2 ]
Saliba, Walid I. [2 ]
Nimri, Nayef [1 ]
Rickard, John [2 ]
Brunner, Michael [2 ]
Bhargava, Mandeep [2 ]
Kanj, Mohamed [2 ]
Baranowski, Bryan [2 ]
Martin, David O. [2 ]
Cantillon, Daniel [2 ]
Callahan, Thomas [2 ]
Dresing, Thomas [2 ]
Niebauer, Mark [2 ]
Chung, Mina [2 ]
Lindsay, Bruce D. [2 ]
Wilkoff, Bruce [2 ]
Hussein, Ayman A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, Dept Med, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Cleveland Clin, Heart & Vasc Inst, Cardiac Electrophysiol & Pacing, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
关键词
Lead extraction; Pacemaker; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; CIED upgrade; Outcome; MANAGEMENT; STRATEGIES; REMOVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.08.019
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND The practice of lead abandonment at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade remains a controversial topic but is affecting an increasing number of patients. Inherent risks include high-risk extractions of redundant leads when extraction is required at a later date. OBJECTIVES We aimed to report our experience with transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at the time of device upgrade. METHODS All consecutive TLE procedures at the time of device upgrade at the Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2012 were included (n = 503). Success and complications were defined according to the Heart Rhythm Society consensus document on TLE. RESULTS There were a total of 984 leads in place, and 719 were targeted with extraction (589 pacer and 130 defibrillator leads, 63 of them being dual-coil leads). In all patients, TLEs aimed to avoid abandoning leads. Concomitant lead management issues included lead malfunction (15%), previously abandoned leads (9%), vascular access occlusion (6%), or leads on advisory (3%). In most procedures (75.4%), special extraction tools were needed. The complete procedural and clinical success rates were 96.6% and 97.2%, respectively. During planned extractions, damage of coexisting leads occurred in 19 patients (3.8%), eventually requiring extraction. The major and minor complication rates were 1% and 1.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION In a high-volume center, TLEs at the time of device upgrade were successful in the vast majority of patients with a low complication rate.
引用
收藏
页码:1807 / 1811
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   Update on Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections and Their Management A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association [J].
Baddour, Larry M. ;
Epstein, Andrew E. ;
Erickson, Christopher C. ;
Knight, Bradley P. ;
Levison, Matthew E. ;
Lockhart, Peter B. ;
Masoudi, Frederick A. ;
Okum, Eric J. ;
Wilson, Walter R. ;
Beerman, Lee B. ;
Bolger, Ann F. ;
Estes, N. A. Mark, III ;
Gewitz, Michael ;
Newburger, Jane W. ;
Schron, Eleanor B. ;
Taubert, Kathryn A. .
CIRCULATION, 2010, 121 (03) :458-477
[2]   Pacemaker and ICD leads: Strategies for long-term management [J].
Borek, P. Peter ;
Wilkoff, Bruce L. .
JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2008, 23 (01) :59-72
[3]   Trends in Use and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Transvenous Lead Removal in the United States [J].
Deshmukh, Abhishek ;
Patel, Nileshkumar ;
Noseworthy, Peter A. ;
Patel, Achint A. ;
Patel, Nilay ;
Arora, Shilpkumar ;
Kapa, Suraj ;
Noheria, Amit ;
Mulpuru, Siva ;
Badheka, Apurva ;
Fischer, Avi ;
Coffey, James O. ;
Cha, Yong Mei ;
Friedman, Paul ;
Asirvatham, Samuel ;
Viles-Gonzalez, Juan F. .
CIRCULATION, 2015, 132 (25) :2363-2371
[4]   Extraction of superfluous device leads: A comparison with removal of infected leads [J].
Huang, Xin-Miao ;
Fu, Haixia ;
Osborn, Michael J. ;
Asirvatham, Samuel J. ;
McLeod, Christopher J. ;
Glickson, Michael ;
Acker, Nancy G. ;
Friedman, Paul A. ;
Cha, Yong-Mei .
HEART RHYTHM, 2015, 12 (06) :1177-1182
[5]  
Hussein Ayman A, 2017, JACC Clin Electrophysiol, V3, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.06.009
[6]   Large, single-center, single-operator experience with transvenous lead extraction: Outcomes and changing indications [J].
Jones, Samuel O. ;
Eckart, Robert E. ;
Albert, Christine M. ;
Epstein, Laurence M. .
HEART RHYTHM, 2008, 5 (04) :520-525
[7]   Should lead explantation be the practice standard when a lead needs to be replaced? [J].
Levine, PA .
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2000, 23 (04) :421-422
[8]   Should They Stay or Should They Go? Current Controversies in Lead Extraction Lead Extraction Is Preferred for Lead Revisions and System Upgrades When Less Is More [J].
Maytin, Melanie ;
Epstein, Laurence M. .
CIRCULATION-ARRHYTHMIA AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 3 (04) :413-424
[9]   Outcome of young patients with abandoned, nonfunctional endocardial leads [J].
Silvetti, Massimo S. ;
Drago, Fabrizio .
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2008, 31 (04) :473-479
[10]   Does the Risk-Benefit Analysis Favor the Extraction of Failed, Sterile Pacemaker and Defibrillator Leads? [J].
Venkataraman, Ganesh ;
Hayes, David L. ;
Strickberger, S. Adam .
JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2009, 20 (12) :1413-1415