Key result
Transvenous lead extraction in low-volume centers was associated with increased major complications including death compared to high-volume centers (OR 1.858; 95% CI 1.007-3.427; P=0.0475).
Why the study?
Transvenous lead extraction should ideally be undertaken by experienced operators in a setting permitting urgent surgery, but whether centre volume and extraction location significantly affect procedure complications and mortality was uncertain.
Does centre volume and procedure location affect major complications and mortality in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Observational (n=3,249)
Yes
Does centre volume and procedure location affect major complications and mortality in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Odds Ratio: 1.858 (95% CI 1.007–3.427)
p-value: p=0.0475
Transvenous lead extraction performed by cardiologists in low-volume centres is associated with higher rates of procedure-related major complications and death, supporting the need for these procedures to be performed in experienced centres.
Supports referring patients to high-volume centers for transvenous lead extraction; leaves.
AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should ideally be undertaken by experienced operators in a setting that allows urgent surgical intervention. In this analysis of the ELECTRa registry, we sought to determine whether there was a significant difference in procedure complications and mortality depending on centre volume and extraction location. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis of the ESC EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry was conducted. Low-volume (LoV) centres were defined as <30 procedures/year, and high-volume (HiV) centres as ≥30 procedures/year. Three thousand, two hundred, and forty-nine patients underwent TLE by a primary operator cardiologist; 17.1% in LoV centres and 82.9% in HiV centres. Procedures performed by primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres were less likely to be successful (93.5% vs. 97.1%; P < 0.0001) and more likely to be complicated by procedure-related deaths (1.1% vs. 0.4%; P = 0.0417). Transvenous lead extraction undertaken by primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres were associated with increased procedure-related major complications including death (odds ratio 1.858, 95% confidence interval 1.007-3.427; P = 0.0475). Transvenous lead extraction locations varied; 52.0% operating room, 9.5% hybrid theatre and 38.5% catheterization laboratory. Rates of procedure-related major complications, including death occurring in a high-risk environment (combining operating room and hybrid theatre), were similar to those undertaken in the catheterization laboratory (1.7% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.9297). CONCLUSION: Primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres are more likely to have extractions complicated by procedure-related deaths. There was no significant difference in procedure complications between different extraction settings. These findings support the need for TLE to be performed in experienced centres with appropriate personnel present.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sidhu et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Transvenous lead extraction (n=3,249). Low-volume centers (<30 procedures/year) vs. High-volume centers (≥30 procedures/year) was evaluated on Procedure-related major complications including death (OR 1.858, 95% CI 1.007-3.427, p=0.0475). Transvenous lead extraction in low-volume centers was associated with increased major complications including death compared to high-volume centers (OR 1.858; 95% CI 1.007-3.427; P=0.0475).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: