Key result
ICD lead extraction linked to ~67% fewer major complications versus PM leads.
Why the study?
Transvenous removal of ICD leads is considered more difficult and risky, prompting an evaluation of the impact of ICD lead design on lead extraction safety and effectiveness.
Does ICD lead design impact the safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction compared to pacemaker leads and across different manufacturers?
Observational (n=3,929)
Does ICD lead design impact the safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction compared to pacemaker leads and across different manufacturers?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.75% vs 2.25%
p-value: p=0.002
ICD lead extraction is associated with fewer major complications and higher procedural success compared to pacemaker lead extraction, largely driven by shorter implant durations, with minor differences in success rates among ICD manufacturers.
ICD lead extraction was associated with fewer major complications than pacemaker leads; supports prior observational data but leaves causality and practice change open.
Background Transvenous removal of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) leads is considered to be more difficult and risky. The goal was to explore the impact of ICD lead design on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) safety and effectiveness. Methods Analysis of 3929 TLE procedures (including 1068 with ICD lead extraction) were analyzed retrospectively. Results The extracted ICD leads were about three years younger than pacemaker (PM) leads (medians: 61.00 vs. 97.00 months). The rate of major TLE complications (MC) was significantly higher in the PM lead extraction group (2.25% vs. 0.75%; p = 0.002) and complete procedural success was achieved significantly less often (by 4.11%; p < 0.001 in entire group of patients and by 3.74%; p < 0.001 in patients matched according to age of extracted lead). However, no significant differences were found in the scores of TLE complexity and major complications during extraction of ICD leads produced by different manufacturers. Lower rates of complete procedural success, compared to Medtronic ICD leads, were found in patients with Abbott and Biotronik ICD leads (99.45% vs. 97.32%; p = 0.009 and 96.65%; p = 0.003). Conclusions 1. ICD lead implant duration was 3.17 years shorter and perhaps for this reason ICD lead extraction was often less difficult, the procedure less complex and MC significantly rare (0.75%) in comparison with PM lead extraction (2.55%). There were no differences between groups matched according to age of extracted lead. Achieving of complete procedural success was lower in PM lead extraction both in entire as in matched group of patients. 2. There were no significant differences in the complexity of TLE procedures or the incidence of major complications depending on ICD lead manufacturer, despite the fact that Biotronik leads were 16–19 months older. 3. The extraction of Abbot and Biotronik leads was associated with a lower rate of complete procedural success (by 2.13% and 2.80%).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kutarski et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Transvenous lead extraction (n=3,929). ICD lead extraction vs. Pacemaker (PM) lead extraction was evaluated on Major TLE complications (p=0.002). Transvenous extraction of ICD leads was associated with a significantly lower rate of major complications compared to pacemaker leads (0.75% vs. 2.25%; p=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: