Key result
Percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads achieved a complete procedural success rate of 91.7% and clinical procedural success rate of 100%.
Why the study?
Is percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads using dedicated removal tools feasible and safe?
Observational (n=36)
No
Is percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads using dedicated removal tools feasible and safe?
Percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads using dedicated traction and countertraction tools is highly successful and safe.
High procedural success in this small series supports feasibility of dedicated tools; leaves open need for larger prospective safety data.
BACKGROUND: Widespread use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has inevitably increased the need for lead revision/replacement. We report our experience in percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker/defibrillator leads. METHODS: Thirty-six patients admitted to our centre from September 2005 through October 2012 for percutaneous lead extraction were included. Lead removal was attempted using Spectranetics traction-type system (Spectranetics Corp., Colorado, CO, USA) and VascoExtor countertraction-type system (Vascomed GmbH, Weil am Rhein, Germany). RESULTS: Lead extraction was attempted in 59 leads from 36 patients (27 men), mean ± SD age 61 ± 5 years, with permanent pacemaker (n = 25), defibrillator (n = 8), or cardiac resynchronisation therapy (n = 3) with a mean ± SD implant duration of 50 ± 23 months. The indications for lead removal included pocket infection (n = 23), endocarditis (n = 2), and ventricular (n = 10) and atrial lead dysfunction (n = 1). Traction device was used for 33 leads and countertraction device for 26 leads. Mean ± SD fluoroscopy time was 4 ± 2 minutes/lead for leads implanted <48 months (n = 38) and 7 ± 3 minutes/lead for leads implanted >48 months (n = 21), P = 0.03. Complete procedural success rate was 91.7% and clinical procedural success rate was 100%, while lead procedural success rate was 95%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker/defibrillator leads using dedicated removal tools is both feasible and safe.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paraskevaidis et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Need for permanent pacemaker/defibrillator lead revision or replacement (n=36). Percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker/defibrillator leads was evaluated on Complete procedural success rate. Percutaneous extraction of transvenous permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads achieved a complete procedural success rate of 91.7% and clinical procedural success rate of 100%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: