This review discusses the potential complications and balance of risks between transvenous lead extraction and lead abandonment for redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads.
Does transvenous lead extraction improve safety outcomes compared to lead abandonment in patients with redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads?
This review highlights the balance of risks between transvenous lead extraction and lead abandonment for redundant or malfunctioning cardiac device leads, informed by the European ELECTRa registry.
Cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation rates have increased over the past decade due to broader indications and an ageing population. Similarly, device and lead complications have also risen. The management of pacemaker/defibrillator leads that are no longer required (redundant) or malfunctioning, can be contentious. There is a need to balance the risk of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) against those of lead abandonment. The recently published European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry (ELECTRa) study provides contemporary outcomes for TLE across Europe with important implications for the management of redundant and/or malfunctioning leads. This review article discusses the potential complications for each interventional approach when managing redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker leads.
Sidhu et al. (Wed,) conducted a review in Redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) vs. Lead abandonment was evaluated. This review discusses the potential complications and balance of risks between transvenous lead extraction and lead abandonment for redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: