Key result
TLE for leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery achieves clinical success comparable to standard extraction.
Why the study?
Spontaneous lead dislodgement into the pulmonary circulation is a rare complication of permanent pacing with unproven harmfulness and controversial indication for transvenous lead extraction.
Does transvenous lead extraction have comparable safety and effectiveness in patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery compared to those without?
Cohort (n=1,767)
No
Does transvenous lead extraction have comparable safety and effectiveness in patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery compared to those without?
Absolute Event Rate: 94.7% vs 98%
p-value: p=0.30
Transvenous lead extraction in patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery appears as safe and effective as standard TLE procedures, suggesting these patients should be considered candidates for extraction.
TLE appears feasible for pulmonary artery dislodged leads; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Introduction: Spontaneous lead dislodgement into the pulmonary circulation is a rare complication of permanent pacing with unproven harmfulness and an indication of controversial class for transvenous lead extraction (TLE).Aim: To assess TLE safety in patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery.Material and methods: A retrospective analysis of a 9-year-old database of transvenous lead extraction procedures comprising 1767 TLEs was carried out, including a group of 19 (1.1%) patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery (LDPA).Results: Under univariate analysis the factors that increased the likelihood of the presence of an electrode in the pulmonary artery were mean lead dwelling time (increase of risk by 9% per year), total number of leads in the heart before TLE (increase of risk by 66% for one lead) and the number of abandoned leads (increase of risk by 119%).The presence of LDPA was associated with frequent occurrence of intracardiac lead abrasion (increase by 316%) and isolated lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE) (increase by 500%).There were no statistically significant differences in clinical (p = 0.3), procedural (p = 0.94) or radiological (p = 0.31) success rates in compared (LDPA and non-LDPA) groups.Long-term mortality after TLE was comparable in both groups.Conclusions: As the effectiveness and safety of TLE in patients with LDPA are comparable to those in standard TLE procedures, in our opinion, such patients should be considered TLE candidates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Polewczyk et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device leads requiring transvenous extraction (n=1,767). Leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery (LDPA) vs. Standard transvenous lead extraction (non-LDPA) was evaluated on Clinical success (p=0.30). Transvenous lead extraction in patients with leads dislodged into the pulmonary artery achieved a 94.7% clinical success rate, comparable to the 98.0% success rate in standard procedures.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: