Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in a reduced infection rate, diminished postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements, reduced occurrence of new onset of atrial fibrillation, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of venous stenosis and occlusion (VSO) in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) with regard to the indications for this treatment and to analyse the influence of VSO on efficacy, complications and technical challenges of TLE procedures. Methods The material consists of 133 consecutive TLE procedure records. The contrast venography examination of the ipsilateral access vein was performed prior to the operation. The whole study population was divided into two subgroups, based on the presence (subgroup I) or absence (subgroup II) of VSO. Results Phlebography was performed in 133 patients with age ranging from 25.7 to 86.1 years, 44 female (33.1%). The VSO was confirmed in 48 (36.1%) patients - subgroup I. Most of the patients were referred to TLE due to non-infectious reasons (100 pts-75.2%). The absence of VSO was observed substantially more frequently in patients with diabetes (P = 0.02). Procedural success rate reached 93.3% in subgroup I and 98.8% in subgroup II (P = 0.1). There was no significant difference in the use of advanced tools and alternative access sites. Conclusion The presence of VSO can be expected in one third of patients referred for lead extraction. There is no association between indication for TLE (infected or noninfected lead extraction) and the incidence of VSO. Diabetes proved to have a protective effect on venous patency in the previously mentioned group. VSO does not influence the effectiveness, safety, and the use of additional tools during TLE procedures.

IntroductionPrevention of periprocedural stroke has a crucial role in carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures.AimTo assess retrospectively 30-day safety and effectiveness of 41 procedures of internal and common carotid artery stenting using the Roadsaver double nitinol layer micromesh stent in 40 non-consecutive patients with symptomatic or high-risk carotid artery stenosis.Material and methodsThe patients were men (n = 31) and women (n = 9); mean age was 67.8 ±7.9 years. Femoral access was used in 39 cases, whereas radial access was used in 2. Proximal (n = 27) or distal (n = 14) embolic neuroprotection was used.ResultsThe Roadsaver stents (nominal diameter 7, 8 or 9 mm, length 25 or 30 mm) were implanted successfully in all cases. One minor stroke occurred after common carotid artery intubation with a guiding catheter (before stent deployment) and one transient postprocedural ischemic attack (TIA) of the ipsilateral cerebral hemisphere was observed. Internal/common carotid artery stenosis severity was evaluated by duplex Doppler. Maximal peak systolic velocity (PSV) before CAS was in the range: 2.0–7.0 m/s, mean: 3.9 ±1.0 m/s, at 24–48 h after stenting mean PSV was 1.1 ±0.4 m/s (p < 0.05), and at 30 days 1.1 ±0.3 m/s (p < 0.05). Maximal end-diastolic velocity (EDV) was 0.85–3.5 m/s, mean 1.4 ±0.5 m/s, at 24–48 h after stenting mean EDV was 0.3 ±0.1 m/s (p < 0.05), and at 30 days 0.4 ±0.1 m/s (p < 0.05). No restenosis or thrombosis was observed. Angiographic stenosis decreased from 82.9 ±9.1% (range: 61–97%) to 19.3 ±7.3% (range: 0–34%) (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe CAS using the Roadsaver stent seems to be safe and effective. Further studies involving larger patient populations and longer follow-up are needed.

Objective:To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) with mechanical systems of pacing leads older than 20 years (group A) versus younger leads (group B). Methods:We performed TLE of 591 pacing leads in 377 patients. Fifty (8.5%) leads in 43 (11.4%) patients were implanted for equal to or more than 20 years. The mean dwell time of all extracted leads was 8.9 years (range, 0.1-36.0). Infection related to cardiovascular implantable electronic device was an indication for TLE in 18.3% of patients. Results:Complete lead removal and complete procedural success rates were similar between both groups (94.7% in group A vs 97.1% in group B, P = 0.445, and 90.7% in group A vs 95.8% in group B, P = 0.329, respectively). Incomplete lead removal in group A was observed only in leads older than 20 years. Removal of leads in group A was associated with significantly longer fluoroscopy time compared with group B (4.6 vs 1.9 minutes, P < 0.001). We did not find a significant difference in major and minor complication rates between groups (2.3% in group A vs 0.9% in group B and 2.3% in group A vs 2.2% in group B, P = 0.687, respectively). There were no deaths associated with the TLE procedure within 30 days after the procedure in either group. Conclusion:This study shows that TLE of leads older than 20 years conducted at an experienced center seems to be comparably safe and effective as extraction of younger leads but requires longer fluoroscopy time. K E Y W O R D Scardiovascular implantable electronic devices, effectiveness, safety, transvenous lead extraction