Key result
High-grade generator pocket adhesions (≥60% coverage) predicted lower rates of complete lead extraction compared to adhesion-free or low-grade cases (75% vs 100%, P≤0.05).
Why the study?
Does the severity of generator pocket adhesions predict the difficulty and success rate of transvenous lead extraction in patients with cardiac devices?
Cohort (n=58)
Does the severity of generator pocket adhesions predict the difficulty and success rate of transvenous lead extraction in patients with cardiac devices?
Extensive generator pocket adhesions strongly predict the need for more extraction tools and lower success rates for complete transvenous lead extraction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Higher adhesions linked to lower removal rates; leaves open prospective validation before guiding extraction planning.
OBJECTIVES: Pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads become encapsulated intravascularly and in the generator pocket by fibrotic adhesions that accumulate over time. These adhesions are responsible for the difficulty and risk of lead extraction procedures. We developed a classification scheme for pocket adhesions, classified all of the patients in the cohort, and examined the relationship between pocket adhesions and the outcome of the procedure. METHODS: The classification of adhesions with respect to the intraoperative adhesion coverage was as followed: class 0 = adhesion free; class 1 ≤ 30% of adhesion coverage; class 2 = 30-60% of adhesion coverage; and class 3 ≥ 60% coverage. Patient data between December 2010 and March 2012 were collected. A total of 100 leads were extracted from 58 patients (1.7 ± 0.8 leads/patient); the mean lead implant duration was 78.5 ± 66.7 months, and the percentage of PM/ICD leads was 68% (n = 68)/32% (n = 32). RESULTS: Distribution of the leads among classes: 0 = 10; 1 = 17; 2 = 25; and 3 = 48. Average implant times (months) according to the adhesion classes: 0 = 1.2 ± 0.4; 1 = 19.8 ± 19.2; 2 = 79.3 ± 46.6; and 3 = 115.1 ± 106.0 (correlation-coefficient 0.71; P ≤ 0.05). Average numbers of extraction tools used according to the adhesions: 0 = none; 1 = 0.4 ± 0.7; 2 = 1.6 ± 1.0; and 3 = 2.3 ± 1.2 (correlation coefficient = 0.67; P ≤ 0.05). Complete removal was achieved in 100% of the patients in classes 0 and 1; 96% in class 2 (n = 24); and 75% in class 3 (n = 36) (P ≤ 0.05). Mortality = 0. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive adhesions in the generator pocket predict the need for a higher number of extraction tools. High-grade pocket adhesions predict lower success rates with regard to complete lead extraction. Both findings suggest that the degree of pocket adhesions predicts the degree of intravascular adhesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biefer et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker and ICD lead extraction (n=58). Generator pocket adhesions vs. Lower grades of pocket adhesions was evaluated on Complete lead removal (p=≤0.05). High-grade generator pocket adhesions (≥60% coverage) predicted lower rates of complete lead extraction compared to adhesion-free or low-grade cases (75% vs 100%, P≤0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: