Key result
Transvenous lead extraction for noninfective indications was associated with lower complete procedural success rates compared to infective indications (90.7% vs. 97.2%, p=0.004).
Why the study?
Transvenous lead extraction is critical for CIED management, but the outcomes and the specific impact of infection required evaluation.
Does infective indication compared to noninfective indication improve procedural success and reduce complexity in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Observational (n=242)
Does infective indication compared to noninfective indication improve procedural success and reduce complexity in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.7% vs 97.2%
p-value: p=0.004
Transvenous lead extraction is more demanding and has lower success rates in patients with noninfective indications compared to those with infective indications, likely due to infection dissolving fibrotic adherences.
Noninfective TLE indications associate with greater procedural demands; leaves open whether infection reduces adhesions or if biases explain differences.
INTRODUCTION: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is critical in the long-term management of patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of the study is to evaluate the outcomes of TLE and to investigate the impact of infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of patients undergoing extraction of permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads during October 2014-September 2019 were prospectively analyzed. Overall, 242 consecutive patients (aged 71.0 ± 14.0 years, 31.4% female), underwent an equal number of TLE operations for the removal of 516 leads. Infection was the commonest indication (n = 201, 83.1%). Mean implant-to-extraction duration was 7.6 ± 5.4 years. Complete procedural success was recorded in 96.1%, and clinical procedural success was achieved in 97.1% of attempted lead extractions. Major complications occurred in two (0.8%) and minor complications in seven (2.9%) patients. Leads were removed exclusively by using locking stylets in 65.7% of the cases. In the subgroup of noninfective patients, advanced extraction tools were more frequently required compared to patients with CIED infections, to extract leads (success only with locking stylet: 55.8% vs. 67.8%, p = .032). In addition, patients without infection demonstrated lower complete procedural success rates (90.7% vs. 97.2%, p = .004), higher major complication rates (2.4% vs. 0.5%, p = .31) and longer procedural times (136 ± 13 vs. 111 ± 15 min, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate high procedural efficacy and safety and indicate that in patients with noninfective indications, the procedure is more demanding, thus supporting the hypothesis that leads infection dissolves and/or prohibits the formation of fibrotic adherences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Archontakis et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) leads requiring extraction (n=242). Noninfective indications vs. Infective indications was evaluated on Complete procedural success (p=0.004). Transvenous lead extraction for noninfective indications was associated with lower complete procedural success rates compared to infective indications (90.7% vs. 97.2%, p=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: