Why the study?
Does a modified transvenous lead extraction technique using an ablation catheter reduce procedural times compared to standard techniques in patients with CIED-related infections?
Does a modified transvenous lead extraction technique using an ablation catheter reduce procedural times compared to standard techniques in patients with CIED-related infections?
A modified transvenous lead extraction technique using an ablation catheter significantly reduces procedural and fluoroscopy times without compromising success or safety compared to standard techniques.
May shorten lead extraction times in CIED infections; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
AIMS: Complete lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) for device-related infections remains a complex procedure for chronically implantated leads. We present data from a single-centre registry of consecutive patients with extractions over 10 years. METHOD AND RESULTS: Patients were identified from the centre's electronic database with CIED-related infections who underwent lead extraction using either the standard technique and equipment or a modified innovative transvenous lead technique extraction using an ablation catheter. Of 151 patients with CIED-related infections, not responding to simple manual traction to effect lead extraction, average age 65 ± 8 years (range 45-82), 64% being male, 75 underwent standard (S) extraction, and 76 underwent modified (M) extraction. Procedural, lead extraction, and fluoroscopy exposure times with S and M methods, respectively, were 65 ± 14 vs. 52 ± 6 min (P < 0.01), 56 ± 12 vs. 36 ± 8 min (P < 0.001), and 48 ± 12 vs. 31 ± 7 min (P < 0.001). Retrieval rates were numerically lower with the standard technique at 92 vs. 96% but did not achieve significance, with respective complication rates of 6.7 and 5.3%. CONCLUSION: In our single-centre study, a modified extraction technique to retrieve leads for infections of CIEDs using a steerable ablation catheter has improved procedural parameters over the standard technique, without compromising clinical lead extraction success rates. This may be a promising approach for a future, prospective trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: