The Polish Registry demonstrates a shift in lead extraction indications over time, with a decreasing proportion of class 1 indications (infections) and a significant increase in class 2b indications (nonfunctional leads).
Shifting indications toward nonfunctional lead extraction warrant caution in selection; extends registry trends but leaves open outcome data needs.
INTRODUCTION: Over the last 10 years, there has been an increasing number of patients with pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). This study is a retrospective analysis of indications for endocardial pacemaker and ICD lead extractions between 2003 and 2009 based on the experience of three Polish Referral Lead Extraction Centers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since 2003, the authors have consecutively retrospectively collected all cases and entered the information in the database. All patients which had indication for lead extraction according to Heart Rhythm Society Guidelines were included to final analyze. Between 2003 and 2005, the data were analyzed together. Since 2006, data have been collected and analyzed annually. RESULTS: In each year, a significant increase in lead extraction was observed. The main indications for LE were infections in 52.4% of patients. Nonfunctioning lead extraction constituted the second group of indications for LE in 29.7% of patients. During the registry period, the percentage of class I indications decreased from 80% in 2006 to only 47% in 2009. On the other hand, increasingly more leads were removed because of class 2, especially class 2b. In 2009, 40% of leads were extracted due to class 2b. CONCLUSIONS: Polish Registry of Endocardial Lead Extraction 2003-2009, shows an increasing frequency of lead extraction. The main indication for LE is infection: systemic and pocket. An increase in class 2, especially 2b, LE indication in every center during the study period was found.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chudzik et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: