Key result
Childhood-implanted pacemakers linked to ~14-point lower lead extraction success versus adulthood-implanted devices.
Why the study?
Lead management in children and young adults remains a matter of debate.
Does transvenous lead extraction in adults with childhood-implanted pacemakers carry different risks and procedural success rates compared to adulthood-implanted pacemakers?
Cohort (n=2,757)
Yes
Does transvenous lead extraction in adults with childhood-implanted pacemakers carry different risks and procedural success rates compared to adulthood-implanted pacemakers?
Absolute Event Rate: 81.63% vs 95.68%
p-value: p=<0.05
A conservative lead management strategy with repeated implantations in childhood creates a high-risk adult population facing extremely complex and hazardous lead extraction procedures.
May warrant extra procedural caution in this population; leaves open optimal extraction strategies pending prospective data.
BACKGROUND: Lead management in children and young adults is still a matter of debate. METHODS: To assess the course of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in adults with pacemakers implanted in childhood (CIP) we compared 98 CIP patients with a control group consisting of adults with pacemakers implanted in adulthood (AIP). RESULTS: CIP patients differed from AIP patients with respect to indications for TLE and pacing history. CIP patients were four-eight times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools. Furthermore, CIP patients more often than AIP were prone to developing complications: major complications (MC) (any) 2.6 times; hemopericardium 3.2 times; severe tricuspid valve damage 4.4 times; need for rescue cardiac surgery 3.7 times. The rate of procedural success was 11% lower because of 4.8 times more common lead remnants and 3.1 times more frequent permanently disabling complications. CONCLUSIONS: Due to system-related risk factors TLE in CIP patients is more difficult and complex. TLE in CIP is associated with an increased risk of MC and incomplete lead removal. A conservative strategy of lead management, acceptable in very old patients seems to be less suitable in CIP because it creates a subpopulation of patients at high risk of major complications during TLE in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kutarski et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) (n=2,757). Transvenous lead extraction for childhood-implanted pacemakers (CIP) vs. Transvenous lead extraction for adulthood-implanted pacemakers (AIP) was evaluated on Procedural success (extraction of all targeted leads in their entirety, no permanent adverse consequences or procedure-related death) (p=<0.05). Transvenous lead extraction in adults with pacemakers implanted in childhood had a significantly lower procedural success rate (81.63% vs 95.68%) and higher rates of major complications compared to adults implanted in adulthood.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: