Key result
Low-temperature electrocautery is linked to ~23% fewer procedure- or lead-related adverse events vs. standard electrocautery.
Why the study?
Data on the impact of different electrosurgical tools on procedure- or lead-related adverse events in cardiac device procedures are limited.
Does low-temperature electrocautery reduce procedure- or lead-related adverse events in patients undergoing CIED revision, upgrade, or replacement compared to standard electrocautery?
Cohort (n=5,205)
Yes
Does low-temperature electrocautery reduce procedure- or lead-related adverse events in patients undergoing CIED revision, upgrade, or replacement compared to standard electrocautery?
Hazard Ratio: 0.77 (95% CI 0.65–0.91)
p-value: p=.002
Low-temperature electrocautery significantly reduces the risk of procedure- or lead-related adverse events compared to standard electrocautery during CIED revision, upgrade, or replacement procedures.
Low-temperature electrocautery was associated with fewer adverse events in CIED revisions; leaves open whether randomized data will confirm benefit and shift practice.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac device procedures require tissue dissection to free existing device lead(s). Common techniques include blunt dissection, standard electrocautery, and low-temperature electrocautery (PlasmaBlade, Medtronic); however, data on the type of electrosurgical tool used and the development of procedure- or lead-related adverse events are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether standard or low-temperature electrocautery impacts the development of an adverse event. METHODS: We evaluated patients enrolled in WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic EnveloPe Infection PrevenTion Trial) undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision, upgrade, or replacement. All adverse events were adjudicated by an independent physician committee. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression modeling. RESULTS: In total, 5641 patients underwent device revision/upgrade/replacement. Electrocautery was used in 5205 patients (92.3%) (mean age 70.6 ± 12.7 years; 28.8% female), and low-temperature electrocautery was used in 1866 patients (35.9%). Compared to standard electrocautery, low-temperature electrocautery was associated with a 23% reduction in the incidence of a procedure- or lead-related adverse event through 3 years of follow up (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.91; P = .002). After controlling for the number of active leads, degree of capsulectomy, degree of lead dissection, and renal dysfunction, low-temperature electrocautery was associated with a 32% lower risk of lead-related adverse events (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89; P = .004). These effects were consistent across a spectrum of lead-related adverse event types. CONCLUSION: This study represents one of the largest assessments of electrocautery use in patients undergoing CIED revision, upgrade, or replacement procedures. Compared to standard electrocautery, low-temperature electrocautery significantly reduces adverse effects from these procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mittal et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision, upgrade, or replacement (n=5,205). Low-temperature electrocautery vs. Standard electrocautery was evaluated on Procedure- or lead-related adverse event (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91, p=.002). Low-temperature electrocautery was associated with a 23% reduction in procedure- or lead-related adverse events compared to standard electrocautery (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P=.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: