Key result
Transvenous lead extraction with co-implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy system achieved effective resynchronization in 100% of patients without any deaths or severe complications.
Why the study?
Does transvenous lead extraction with co-implantation of CRT systems provide effective and safe resynchronization therapy in patients with lead failure, redundant leads, or venous occlusion?
Observational (n=38)
No
Does transvenous lead extraction with co-implantation of CRT systems provide effective and safe resynchronization therapy in patients with lead failure, redundant leads, or venous occlusion?
Transvenous lead extraction combined with CRT implantation is an effective and safe strategy for patients requiring device upgrades or revisions with lead-related complications.
Supports combined extraction-CRT in lead complications; hypothesis-generating, requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Still increasing life expectancy in patients with implanted devices and large number of leads more and more often induce the need to cure the treatment complications or to change especially to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In order to prevent further complications, the possibility of damaged or redundant leads extraction should be taken into consideration. The aim of the paper was to assess the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) with co-implantation of resynchronization systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2008 and March 2013, the system removal with TLE was conducted in 246 patients. In 38 patients (11 women, 28.9%), aged 43-79 (mean 65 years), it was combined with co-implantation of CRT-pacemaker or defibrillator (CRT-P/D). Indications for TLE covered: lead failure in 21 (55.3%) patients, redundant leads in 6 (15.8%), and the occluded venous system in 7 (18.4%). The up-grade of the pacemaker or defibrillator system to CRT-D was performed in 19 cases, CRT-P/D revision in next 19. Together 32 defibrillation leads and 42 pacing leads (27 left ventricular leads, and 1 epicardial lead) were implanted. The intended clinical target--an effective resynchronization therapy--was obtained in all patients. There was no case of death or severe complications. In 2 cases of venous occlusion, the implantation on the contralateral side was required. CONCLUSIONS: TLE enables effective resynchronization therapy also in the case of the presence of too many leads, occlusion of the venous system or lead failure. Significant technical problems can occur especially in patients with venous system occlusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maciąg et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Patients requiring lead extraction and cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=38). Transvenous lead extraction with CRT co-implantation was evaluated on Effective resynchronization therapy. Transvenous lead extraction with co-implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy system achieved effective resynchronization in 100% of patients without any deaths or severe complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: