The effectiveness of transvenous leads extractions implanted more than 10 years before

Abstract

(Cardiol J 2014; 21, 4: 419-424)

Outcomes and Complications of Lead Removal: Can We Establish a Risk Stratification Schema for a Collaborative and Effective Approach?

“…Our study confirmed that lead duration was an independent predictor of failed extraction and major complications . Our extraction failure rate of 16% for ≥15‐year‐old lead extraction was higher than previously reported . The different definition of procedure failure and using different extraction devices may explain this higher rate.…”

“…8,10,12,16,17 Our extraction failure rate of 16% for ࣙ15-yearold lead extraction was higher than previously reported. 8,18 The different definition of procedure failure and using different extraction devices may explain this higher rate. Another important finding was that ICD leads more frequently require laser extraction within the first few years after implantation than do pacing leads.…”

Lead extraction: The road to successful cardiac resynchronization therapy

“…There are no randomized clinical trials evaluating such a treatment, but there are new clinical data supporting this strategy [19]. The increasingly greater experience of the operators and growing set of tools allow to refer patients for such a therapy more boldly and on a wider scale, also in the case of patients with leads implanted many years earlier [4,20]. It is visible even in the growing number of procedures ( Fig.…”

“…The applied techniques were changed gradually from less aggressive to more complex ones, that is from the simple traction, through traction combined with the use of mechanical sheaths, to the use of rotating threaded tip sheaths [4,5].…”

Long-term temporary pacing with an active fixation lead

“…Patient age ranged from 38 to 88 years (mean 67.5 years). TLE procedures were performed in a cardiac surgical or hybrid operation room using a previously described protocol [1]. Pacemakers or defibrillators were removed together with leads due to infective endocarditis in 11 cases (32% of the study group), and in the remaining cases the indication was an infection involving the device pocket.…”