Key result
Mechanical rotational sheath extraction achieves procedural success comparable to conventional lead extraction.
Why the study?
Increasing CIED use has increased the need for transvenous lead extraction, which carries relevant complication risks, prompting evaluation of outcomes, the predictive SAFeTY score, and extraction techniques.
Does mechanical rotational sheath-assisted extraction compared to conventional extraction affect procedural success and safety in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Observational (n=314)
No
Does mechanical rotational sheath-assisted extraction compared to conventional extraction affect procedural success and safety in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Transvenous lead extraction in a real-world cohort achieved high procedural success (>95%) and very low procedure-related mortality, while the SAFeTY score showed only modest discrimination for retrospective safety endpoints.
Background/Objectives: The increasing use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has increased the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), which carries a relevant complication risk. The SAFeTY score was developed to predict procedure-related major complications. We evaluated TLE outcomes, explored associations between the SAFeTY score and retrospective endpoints, and compared conventional extraction (CE) with mechanical rotational sheath-assisted extraction (MRSE). Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing TLE at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2025. The SAFeTY score was calculated in patients undergoing MRSE and examined in relation to procedure-related and all-cause in-hospital mortality, significant post-procedural hemoglobin decrease, and a composite endpoint. Results: Among 314 patients, 193 (61.5%) underwent MRSE. These patients had longer cumulative lead dwell time and more previous procedures, indicating greater procedural complexity. Overall procedural success was 95.9%, procedure-related mortality was 0.3%, and all-cause in-hospital mortality was 4.8%. Exploratory unadjusted comparisons showed no significant differences between MRSE and CE in procedural success or mortality. In the MRSE group, 17.1% had a post-procedural hemoglobin decrease > 30 g/L. The SAFeTY score was not associated with procedure-related or all-cause mortality but was associated with the composite endpoint (odds ratio 1.12 per point, p = 0.025), with modest discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.59). Conclusions: TLE achieved high procedural success and very low procedure-related mortality. Because MRSE was non-randomly selected for more complex procedures, the study cannot establish equivalence or an independent effect of extraction strategy. Associations between the SAFeTY score and alternative retrospective endpoints should be considered exploratory and do not constitute validation for its original purpose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Racman et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Transvenous lead extraction (n=314). Mechanical rotational sheath-assisted extraction (MRSE) vs. Conventional extraction (CE) was evaluated on Procedural success (p=0.09). Mechanical rotational sheath-assisted extraction achieved a 94.3% procedural success rate compared to 98.3% for conventional extraction, with no significant difference between the non-randomized groups.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: