» Articles » PMID: 22486778

Evolution in Transvenous Extraction of Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Using a Mechanical Dilator Sheath

Overview
Date 2012 Apr 11
PMID 22486778
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: With developing technology, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has undergone an explosive evolution due to incremental problems related to lead infection and malfunction.

Objective: We aimed to present our experience in TLE with the Evolution®Mechanical Dilator Sheath (Cook Medical, Grandegrift, PA, USA).

Methods: Between June 2009 and July 2011, the Evolution®mechanical dilator sheath was used for the extraction of 140 pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads in 66 patients. Indications for extraction, procedural success, and complications were defined according to Heart Rhythm Society Guidelines.

Results: Indications for TLE were infection in 39 patients (59.1%), lead malfunction in 26 patients (39.4%), and lead displacement in one patient (1.5%). Extracted devices were PM in 28 cases (42.3%), ICD in 26 cases (39.4%), and biventricular cardioverter defibrillator in 12 cases (18.2%). Among 140 leads, 31 (22.1%) were right ventricular, 49 (35.0%) were defibrillator coil, 47 (33.6%) were atrial, and 13 (9.3%) were coronary sinus electrodes. The median time interval from the lead implantation to lead extraction was 85 months (range 22-240 months). Complete procedural success with the Evolution®system alone was achieved in 58 (87.9%) patients and overall clinical success was 98.5%. Four leads were completely removed with the help of a femoral snare and partial success was achieved in three leads with a remaining small ventricular tip. Major complication was observed in only one (1.5%) patient without any mortality.

Conclusions: Our experience confirms that the hand-powered Evolution system is an effective extraction tool for chronically implanted PM/ICD leads. Randomized controlled studies are required to evaluate success and complication rates in comparison to other techniques.

Citing Articles

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Akhtar Z, Kontogiannis C, Georgiopoulos G, Starck C, Leung L, Lee S Europace. 2023; 25(11).

PMID: 37882609 PMC: 10638006. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euad316.


Atrial Fibrillation and Transvenous Lead Extraction-A Comprehensive Subgroup Analysis of the GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY (GALLERY).

Chung D, Pecha S, Burger H, Anwar O, Eickholt C, Nagele H Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58(11).

PMID: 36422224 PMC: 9697767. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58111685.


Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis.

Lee S, Allen I, Diaz C, Guo X, Pellegrini C, Beygui R J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021; 66(5):1067-1075.

PMID: 34839431 PMC: 10333355. DOI: 10.1007/s10840-021-01076-x.


Percutaneous Removal of Cardiac Leads in a Single Center in South America.

Lemos Silva Di Nubila B, Lacerda G, Cramer Veiga Rey H, Barbosa R Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(5):908-916.

PMID: 34008813 PMC: 8121483. DOI: 10.36660/abc.20190726.


Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads.

Pecha S, Ziegelhoeffer T, Yildirim Y, Choi Y, Willems S, Reichenspurner H Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020; 32(3):402-407.

PMID: 33257960 PMC: 8906697. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa278.