Why the study?
Should malfunctioning ICD leads be extracted or left in situ?
Should malfunctioning ICD leads be extracted or left in situ?
Malfunctioning ICD leads without uncovered insulation defects should generally be left in situ and a new lead inserted, reserving extraction for cases where interference with new leads cannot be excluded.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports lead abandonment for malfunctioning ICD leads without insulation defects; leaves open need for prospective validation.
AIMS: The development of new extraction techniques has improved the success rate of intravascular extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads, and hence the practice of extraction is expanding. However, the indications for lead extraction of malfunctioning leads in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are still not well established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the literature concerning structural complications of ICD leads. The clinical presentation and detection of malfunction is discussed as well as the consequences for adequate defibrillation therapy. An overview of the current published experience of intravascular extraction of ICD leads is provided including a brief discussion of our own experience. CONCLUSION: From this overview we conclude that malfunctioning pace-sense or ICD leads can be left in situ if there are no uncovered insulation defects. Inserting a new pace-sense or ICD lead is preferable in this situation given the current known complication rate of lead extraction. Lead extraction should be reserved for damaged leads in which interference with proper detection or defibrillation of newly inserted leads cannot be excluded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frank Bracke (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: