Key result
Powered rotational sheaths achieve similar success and major complication rates versus non-powered telescoping sheaths.
Why the study?
Transvenous lead extraction is essential for CIED management, but comparative data between non-powered telescoping sheaths and powered rotational sheaths remain limited.
Do powered rotational sheaths (TightRail) improve procedural success or reduce complications compared to non-powered telescoping sheaths in patients undergoing complex transvenous lead extraction?
Cohort (n=308)
No
Do powered rotational sheaths (TightRail) improve procedural success or reduce complications compared to non-powered telescoping sheaths in patients undergoing complex transvenous lead extraction?
Powered rotational sheaths achieve comparable efficacy and safety to telescoping sheaths in transvenous lead extraction, with major complications driven primarily by patient and lead factors rather than the extraction strategy.
Observational comparison should not alter current TLE practice; leaves open randomized evaluation of rotational sheaths and WARD-10.
Background Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is essential for CIED management and is generally safe with contemporary techniques, although rare cardiac or vascular complications can be life‐threatening. Comparative data between non‐powered telescoping sheaths (TS) and powered rotational sheaths remain limited. Methods After excluding simple traction cases, 308 consecutive TLE patients treated at a tertiary center (2014–2025) were analyzed (73 TS‐only; 235 TightRail). Procedural success, efficiency, and complications were compared. Major complications were defined as life‐threatening or fatal procedure‐related events, or events requiring urgent invasive or surgical intervention. Predictors of major complications were identified using multivariable logistic regression, and a pragmatic risk score (WARD‐10: Weight < 60 kg, Age ≥ 74 years, Right subclavian approach, Diabetes mellitus, lead age ≥ 10 years) was developed. Results The TightRail group included significantly older leads (oldest lead age 7.0 ± 5.3 vs. 11.4 ± 6.8 years, p < 0.001). Complete and clinical success were similar between TS‐only and TightRail (91.8% vs. 94.0%, p = 0.586; 93.2% vs. 95.3%, p = 0.545), and overall procedure and fluoroscopy times did not differ significantly. In three‐group analysis, TightRail‐only demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. Major complication rates did not differ significantly between the TS‐only and TightRail groups (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.469); these events predominantly occurred in leads ≥ 10 years, whereas complication rates were low regardless of extraction strategy in leads < 10 years. Independent predictors of major complications were weight < 60 kg, right subclavian approach, diabetes mellitus, and lead age ≥ 10 years. WARD‐10 demonstrated good discrimination (AUC 0.857); a cutoff ≥ 3 yielded 72.7% sensitivity and 85.5% specificity. Conclusion TightRail achieved comparable efficacy and efficient performance despite preferential use in more complex cases. Major complications were primarily associated with patient‐ and lead‐related risk factors rather than the extraction strategy alone. The WARD‐10 score provides a simple tool for individualized risk stratification in TLE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) (n=308). Powered rotational sheaths (TightRail) vs. Non-powered telescoping sheaths (TS) was evaluated on Complete success (p=0.586). Powered rotational sheaths achieved similar complete success (94.0% vs 91.8%, p=0.586) and major complication rates (4.3% vs 1.4%, p=0.469) compared to non-powered telescoping sheaths.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: