Key result
The presence of abandoned leads during transvenous lead extraction was associated with lower clinical success (89.8% vs. 96.6%, P<0.0001) and increased odds of clinical failure (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.57-3.40).
Why the study?
The decision to abandon or extract superfluous leads remains controversial, prompting an evaluation of procedural outcomes in patients with versus without abandoned leads undergoing transvenous lead extraction.
Does the presence of abandoned leads increase procedural complexity and complications in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Observational (n=3,508)
Yes
Does the presence of abandoned leads increase procedural complexity and complications in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Absolute Event Rate: 89.8% vs 96.6%
p-value: p=<0.0001
The presence of abandoned leads at the time of transvenous lead extraction is associated with increased procedural complexity, clinical failure, and major complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abandoned leads were associated with lower TLE success and higher complications; leaves open optimal management of superfluous leads.
Segreti et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (n=3,508). Presence of abandoned leads vs. Absence of abandoned leads was evaluated on Clinical success (p=<0.0001). The presence of abandoned leads during transvenous lead extraction was associated with lower clinical success (89.8% vs. 96.6%, P<0.0001) and increased odds of clinical failure (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.57-3.40).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: