Subclinical venous injury occurred in 51% of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction, but was not predicted by age, gender, lead dwell time, or established risk scores.
Observational (n=49)
What clinical and procedural factors are associated with histologic evidence of subclinical vascular injury in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction?
Histological evidence of subclinical venous injury is common during transvenous lead extraction but does not correlate with established risk scores or predict adverse clinical outcomes.
ABSTRACT Background Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a commonly performed and generally safe procedure, though procedural complexity and risk can vary based on clinical and procedural factors. Objective This study aims to identify clinical and procedural factors associated with histologic evidence of subclinical vascular injury, defined by elastin positivity on extracted leads and its clinical significance. Methods Patients undergoing TLE with a lead dwell time of ≥ 1 year were included. Extracted leads with tissue were analyzed histologically using Verhoeff–Van Gieson staining to assess the presence of elastin. Demographic data, procedural and lead characteristics, and indication for extraction were obtained. Established extraction risk scores were calculated to determine efficacy in predicting subclinical vascular injury. Results The cohort included 49 patients with 92 leads extracted. A total of 25 patients (51%) had elastin‐positive leads. Complete procedural success occurred in 95.9% of cases. The multivariate regression model did not identify any independent predictors of elastin presence, including age (OR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.95–1.05; p = 0.89), female gender (OR = 3.04; 95% CI 0.67–13.65; p = 0.14), lead dwell time (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.98–1.29; p = 0.07). Additionally, no scoring system, such as the CCF, EROS, MB, SAFeTY, and LECOM, predicted the presence of elastin. Conclusion Subclinical venous injury was common following TLE, yet did not predict adverse clinical outcomes, reinforcing that TLE performed in experienced centers carries a favorable safety profile. Future studies in larger cohorts are needed to further characterize the clinical utility of subclinical vascular injury.
Lateef et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Transvenous lead extraction (n=49). Transvenous lead extraction was evaluated on Histologic evidence of subclinical vascular injury (elastin positivity on extracted leads). Subclinical venous injury occurred in 51% of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction, but was not predicted by age, gender, lead dwell time, or established risk scores.