Purpose The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly over the last decades. With the development of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), procedural success rates also improved; however, data regarding long-term outcomes are still limited. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcomes after TLE, including reimplantation data, all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Methods Data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in our institution between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Periprocedural, 30-day, long-term, and cause-specific mortalities were calculated. We examined the original and the revised CIED indications and survival rate of patients with or without reimplantation. Results A total of 150 patients (age 66 ± 14 years) with 308 leads (dwelling time 7.8 ± 6.3 years) underwent TLE due to pocket infection (n = 105, 70%), endocarditis (n = 35, 23%), or non-infectious indications (n = 10, 7%). All-cause mortality data were available for all patients, detailed reimplantation data in 98 cases. Procedural death rate was 2% (n = 3), 30-day mortality rate 2.6% (n = 4). During the 3.5 ± 2.4 years of follow-up, 44 patients died. Arrhythmia, as the direct cause of death, was absent. Cardiovascular cause was responsible for mortality in 25%. There was no significant survival difference between groups with or without reimplantation (p = 0.136). Conclusions Despite the high number of pocket and systemic infection and long dwelling times in our cohort, the short-and longterm mortality after TLE proved to be favorable. Moreover, survival without a new device was not worse compared to patients who underwent a reimplantation procedure. Our study underlines the importance of individual reassessment of the original CIED indication, to avoid unnecessary reimplantation.
Articlecomplications. In addition, the rate of prolonged hospitalization was lower in the USguided puncture group (5.04% vs. 1.01%, p=0.032). ConclusionThe use of US for femoral vein puncture in patients undergoing PVI decreased the rate of both major and minor vascular complications. This quasi-randomized comparison strongly supports adapting routine use of US for AF ablation procedures.
Purpose Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of the slow pathway (SP) in atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is highly effective; however, it may require prolonged fluoroscopy and RF time. We postulated that visualization of the SP region with intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) could decrease ablation time, minimize radiation exposure, and facilitate SP ablation compared to the standard, fluoroscopy-guided approach. Methods In our study, we randomized 91 patients undergoing electrophysiologic study and SP ablation for AVNRT into 2 groups: fluoroscopy-only (n = 48) or ICE-guided (n = 43) group. Crossover to ICE-guidance was allowed after 8 unsuccessful RF applications. Results Mapping plus ablation time (mean ± standard deviation: 18.8 ± 16.1 min vs 11.6 ± 15.0 min, p = 0.031), fluoroscopy time (median [interquartile range]: 4.9 [2.93-8.13] min vs. 1.8 [1.2-2.8] min, p < 0.001), and total ablation time (144 [104-196] s vs. 81 [60-159] s, p = 0.001) were significantly shorter in the ICE group. ICE-guidance was associated with reduced radiation exposure ] mGy, p < 0.001). The sum of delivered RF energy (3866 [2786(3866 [ -5656] Ws vs. 2283(3866 [ [1694 Ws, p = 0.002) and number of RF applications (8 [4.25-12.75] vs. 4 [2-7], p = 0.001) were also lower with ICE-guidance. Twelve (25%) patients crossed over to the ICE-guided group. All were treated successfully thereafter with similar number, time, and cumulative energy of RF applications compared to the ICE group. No recurrence occurred during the follow-up. Conclusions ICE-guidance during SP ablation significantly reduces mapping and ablation time, radiation exposure, and RF delivery in comparison to fluoroscopy-only procedures. Moreover, early switching to ICE-guided ablation seems to be an optimal choice in challenging cases.
Aims During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools. Methods and results Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01–0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery. Conclusion The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.
Background The most common complications of electrophysiology (EP) procedures are related to vascular access. Purpose Our study aimed to compare the ultrasound (US)-guided (Group 1) vs. palpation-based (Group 2) technique for femoral venous access in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures. Methods Between January 2018 and October 2019, 355 patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) on uninterrupted anticoagulant treatment were included. They were allocated to Group 1 or 2 based on which of the two procedure rooms their procedure was scheduled in, with only one of the rooms equipped with an US machine including an 8 MHz linear transducer. Major and minor complications and the rate of prolonged hospitalization were compared in the two groups. Major vascular complication was defined as groin hematoma, arteriovenous fistula, or pseudoaneurysm. Hematoma was considered as a major vascular complication if it met type 2 or higher Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (requiring nonsurgical, medical intervention by a health care professional; leading to hospitalization or increased level of care, or prompting evacuation). Results Of the 355 patients 105 were allocated to Group 1 and 250 included in Group 2. Compared to the standard technique, the use of US significantly reduced both major (from 5.60% to 0.95%, p = 0.047) and minor (from 6.40% to 0.95%, p = 0.029) vascular complications. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) of minor/major vascular complications was 10.10% equated to a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 84.13%, and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10 to prevent one bleeding event. No difference was found for the rate of prolonged hospitalization (5.04% vs. 0.95%, p = 0.119). Conclusion With the use of US for the femoral vein puncture in patients undergoing PVI procedure the rate of both major and minor vascular complications were lower.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.