Key result
First-line Evolution RL sheath use is linked to ~6-minute faster lead extraction versus auxiliary use.
Why the study?
Transvenous lead extraction is associated with a risk of life-threatening complications, prompting evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the birotational Evolution tool.
Does using the Evolution RL rotational sheath as a first-choice device shorten transvenous lead extraction time without affecting procedural safety and efficacy compared to its auxiliary use after polypropylene sheaths?
Cohort (n=133)
Yes
Does using the Evolution RL rotational sheath as a first-choice device shorten transvenous lead extraction time without affecting procedural safety and efficacy compared to its auxiliary use after polypropylene sheaths?
Using the birotational Evolution RL sheath as a first-line tool during transvenous lead extraction significantly shortens lead extraction time without compromising procedural efficacy or safety compared to using it after unsuccessful attempts with nonpowered polypropylene sheaths.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support first-choice Evolution RL to shorten extraction time; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is recommended in cases of local and systemic infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Additionally, TLE is indicated in the event of lead damage or CIED malfunction. The extraction procedure is associated with a risk of life-threatening complications. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the EVO registry was to assess the safety and efficacy of birotational Evolution tool usage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This registry study was prospectively conducted in 8 high-volume implantation centers in Poland. The study included 133 patients aged 63.5 ±15.1 years, and 76.69% were male. Indications for the procedure were: local or systemic infection (33.1%) and lead dysfunction (66.9%). The number of leads extracted varied from 1 (39.84%) to 3 (9.77%). RESULTS: Clinical procedural success was achieved in 99.1% of cases. A total of 226 leads were extracted, and 206 used the Evolution system. Two procedural strategies were identified while using the Evolution system: (1) usage of locking stylet, propylene sheaths and the Evolution system (118 leads, 52%) - group A; (2) usage of locking stylet and Evolution (88 leads, 39%) - group B. There were no differences in the number of complications between these 2 groups. The extraction time was significantly shorter (p = 0.02) in group B than in group A. Major complications occurred in 5.2% of cases with 2 intraprocedural deaths. Minor complications occurred in 1.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The registry confirmed the efficacy and relative safety of the birotational Evolution sheath. Using the rotational sheath as a first attempt significantly reduces extraction time without compromising its safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Przybylski et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for CIED infection or lead dysfunction (n=133). Evolution RL rotational sheath as a first-choice approach (with locking stylet) vs. Auxiliary use of Evolution RL sheath after initial attempt with locking stylet and polypropylene Byrd dilator sheaths was evaluated on Lead extraction time (minutes) (p=0.02). First-choice use of the Evolution RL rotational sheath significantly shortened lead extraction time compared to auxiliary use after polypropylene sheaths (mean 21.38 vs 27.79 minutes, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: