Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools.

BACKGROUND: Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures. RESULTS: A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free-floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

Leads with the Cut Proximal Ends Migrated into the Heart and Vasculature: A Rare Phenomenon among 3847 Lead Extraction Procedures.

Background: The study aimed to describe the phenomenon of leads migrated (MPLE) into the cardiovascular system (CVS). Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3847 transvenous lead extractions (TLE). Results: Over a 17-year period, 72 (1.87%) MPLEs (median dwell time 137.5 months) were extracted, which included mainly ventricular leads (56.94%). Overall, 68.06% of MPLEs had their cut proximal ends in the venous system. Most of them were pacing (95.83%) and passive fixation (98.61%) leads. Independent risk factors for MPLE included abandoned leads (OR = 8.473; p < 0.001) and leads located on both sides of the chest (2.981; p = 0.045). The higher NYHA class lowered the probability of MPLE (OR = 0.380; p < 0.001). Procedure complexity was higher in the MPLE group (procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of additional (advanced) tools and alternative venous approach). There were no more major complications in the MPLE group, but the rate of procedural success was lower due to more frequent retention of non-removable lead fragments. Extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival. Conclusions: 1. Extraction of leads with MPLE is rare among other TLE procedures (1.9%), 2. risk factors include abandoned leads and presence of leads on both sides of the chest but a higher NYHA class lowers the probability of MPLE, 3. complexity of MPLE extraction is higher regarding procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of advanced tools and techniques but rates of major complications are comparable, and 4. extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival.

Lead Break during Extraction: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Procedure Complexity and Outcome: Analysis of 3825 Procedures.

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Multilevel Venous Obstruction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

Background and Objectives: The nature of multilevel lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (MLVSO) and its influence on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) as well as long-term survival remains poorly understood. Materials and Methods: A total of 3002 venograms obtained before a TLE were analyzed to identify the risk factors for MLVSO, as well as the procedure effectiveness and long-term survival. Results: An older patient age at the first system implantation (OR = 1.015; p < 0.001), the number of leads in the heart (OR = 1.556; p < 0.001), the placement of the coronary sinus (CS) lead (OR = 1.270; p = 0.027), leads on both sides of the chest (OR = 7.203; p < 0.001), and a previous device upgrade or downgrade with lead abandonment (OR = 2.298; p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of MLVSO. Conclusions: The presence of MLVSO predisposes patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) to the development of infectious complications. Patients with multiple narrowed veins are likely to undergo longer and more complex procedures with complications, and the rates of clinical and procedural success are lower in this group. Long-term survival after a TLE is similar in patients with MLVSO and those without venous obstruction. MLVSO probably better depicts the severity of global venous obstruction than the degree of vein narrowing at only one point.

Lead Extraction in Children and Young Adults: When is the Best Time for Lead/System Replacement?

The best strategy for lead management in children is a matter of debate, and our experiences are limited. This is a retrospective single-center study comparing difficulties and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) implanted ich childhood and at age < 19 years (childhood-implanted-childhood-extracted, CICE) and at age < 19 (childhood-implanted-adulthood-extracted, CIAE). CICE patients-71 children (mean age 15.1 years) as compared to CIAE patients (114 adults (mean age 28.61 years) were more likely to have VVI than DDD pacemakers. Differences in implant duration (7.96 vs 14.08 years) appeared to be most important, but procedure complexity and outcomes also differed between the groups. Young adults with cardiac implantable electronic device implanted in childhood had more risk factors for major complications and underwent more complex procedures compared to children. Implant duration was significantly longer in CIAE patients than in children, being the most important factor that had an impact on patient safety and procedure complexity. CIAE patients were more likely to have prolonged operative duration and more complex procedures due to technical problems, and they were 2-3 times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools compared to children, but the rates of clinical and procedural success were comparable in both groups. The difference between the incidence of major complications between CICE and CIAE patients is very clear (MC 2.9 vs 7.0%, hemopericardium 1.4 vs 5.3% etc.), although statistically insignificant. Delay of lead extraction to adulthood seems to be a riskier option than planned TLE in children before growing up.

Transvenous Lead Extraction in Pediatric Patients　- Is It the Same Procedure in Children as in Adults?

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are very rare in the pediatric population. In children with CIED, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is often necessary. The course and effects of TLE in children are different than in adults. Thus, this study determined the differences and specific characteristics of TLE in children vs. adults.Methods and Results: A post hoc analysis of TLE data in 63 children (age ≤18 years) and 2,659 adults (age ≥40 years) was performed. The 2 groups were compared with respect to risk factors, procedure complexity, and effectiveness. In children, the predominant pacing mode was a single chamber ventricular system and lead dysfunction was the main indication for lead extraction. The mean implant duration before TLE was longer in children (P=0.03), but the dwell time of the oldest extracted lead did not differ significantly between adults and children. The duration (P=0.006) and mean extraction time per lead (P<0.001) were longer in children, with more technical difficulties during TLE in the pediatric group (P<0.001). Major complications were more common, albeit not significantly, in children. Complete radiographic and procedural success were significantly lower in children (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TLE in children is frequently more complex, time consuming, and arduous, and procedural success is more often lower. This is related to the formation of strong fibrous tissue surrounding the leads in pediatric patients.

How does a CIED presence influence chances and safety of haemodialysis access? Conclusions from over 3000 thoracic venografies.

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio-venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function. RESULTS: A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula. CONCLUSION: (1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free-from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.

Background: Lead-dependent venous occlusion may impede the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). The aim of this retrospective, cohort study was to assess the chance of implantation of CVAD in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: We reviewed and analyzed 3,075 venograms of patients with CIEDs undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) between June 2008 and July 2021. Relationship between venous patency and the chance of CVAD placement was estimated. Results: In 2,318 (75.38%) patients, venography showed no potential obstacles to venous port implantation on the ipsilateral side. In patients with leads on the left side, significant narrowing more often affected the subclavian vein than the brachiocephalic vein [1,595 (55.29%) vs. 830 (28.63%), respectively] or the superior vena cava (SVC) [21 (0.73%) cases]. Furthermore, the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins on the opposite side were also narrowed [35 (2.35%) and 27 (1.24%), respectively]. The chances of port insertion were assessed as easy on CIED side or opposite side in 2,318 (75.38%) and 2,291 (97.91%) patients, respectively), as difficult insertion/questionable performance in 246 (8.00%) and 22 (0.94% patients) and doubtful or impossible insertion/questionable performance in 511 (16.62%)/27 (1.15%) patients with CIED. Conclusions: (I) Varying degrees of lead-dependent venous obstruction (LDVO) is a frequent finding in patients with CIEDs; (II) the major thoracic veins on the opposite side of the chest may also be significantly narrowed; (III) venography should be considered before attempted CVAD insertion in patients with long lead dwell times or in patients after CIED removal, including planned contralateral port placement.

Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs. RESULTS: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480]. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Assessment of the impact of organisational model of transvenous lead extraction on the effectiveness and safety of procedure: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of the organisational model of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) on effectiveness and safety of procedures. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of patient data entered prospectively into a computer database. SETTING: Data of all patients undergoing TLE in three centres in Poland between 2006 and 2021 were analysed. PARTICIPANTS: 3462 patients including: 985 patients undergoing TLE in a hybrid room (HR), with cardiac surgeon (CS) as co-operator, under general anaesthesia (GA), with arterial line (AL) and with transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) monitoring (group 1), 68 patients-TLE in HR with CS, under GA, without TEE (group 2), 406 patients-TLE in operating theatre (OT) using 'arm-C' X-ray machine with CS under GA and with TEE (group 3), 154 patients-TLE in OT with CS under GA, without TEE (group 4), 113 patients-TLE in OT with anaesthesia team, using the 'arm-C' X-ray machine, without CS (group 5), 122 patients-TLE in electrophysiology lab (EPL), with CS under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 6), 1614 patients-TLE in EPL, without CS, under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 7). KEY OUTCOME MEASURE: Effectiveness and safety of TLE depending on organisational model. RESULTS: The rate of major complications (MC) was higher in OT/HR than in EPL (2.66% vs 1.38%), but all MCs were treated successfully and there was no MC-related death. The use of TEE during TLE increased probability of complete procedural succemss achieving about 1.5 times (OR=1.482; p<0.034) and were connected with reduction of minor complications occurrence (OR=0.751; p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The most important condition to avoid death due to MC is close co-operation with cardiac surgery team, which permits for urgent rescue cardiac surgery. Continuous TEE monitoring plays predominant role in immediate decision on rescue sternotomy and improves the effectiveness of procedure.

"Ghost", a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance.

"Ghosts" are fibrinous remnants that become visible during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). METHODS: Data from transoesophageal echocardiography-guided TLE procedures performed in 1103 patients were analysed to identify predisposing risk factors for the development of so-called disappearing ghosts-flying ghosts (FG), or attached to the cardiovascular wall-stable ghosts (SG), and to find out whether the presence of ghosts affected patient prognosis after TLE. RESULTS: Ghosts were detected in 44.67% of patients (FG 15.5%, SG 29.2%). The occurrence of ghosts was associated with patient age at first system implantation [FG (OR = 0.984; p = 0.019), SG (OR = 0.989; p = 0.030)], scar tissue around the lead (s) [FG (OR = 7.106; p < 0.001, OR = 1.372; p = 0.011), SG (OR = 1.940; p < 0.001)], adherence of the lead to the cardiovascular wall [FG (OR = 0.517; p = 0.034)] and the number of leads [SG (OR = 1.450; p < 0.002). The presence of ghosts had no impact on long-term survival after TLE in the whole study group [FG HR = 0.927, 95% CI (0.742-1.159); p = 0.505; SG HR = 0.845, 95% CI (0.638-1.132); p = 0.265]. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of growth and maturation of scar tissue surrounding the lead was the strongest factor leading to the development of both types of ghosts. The presence of either form of ghost did not affect long-term survival even after TLE indicated for infection.

The role of cardiac surgery in transvenous lead extraction. A high-volume center experience with 3207 procedures.

Introduction: The guidelines stress the importance of cardiac surgery in the management of life-threatening complications arising from lead removal. Aim: To delineate the roles of the cardiac surgeon during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Material and methods: 3207 patients (38.7% F), average age 65.7 years, underwent the extraction of PM/ICD leads using standard non-powered mechanical systems within the last 14 years. Results: Procedural success 96.1%, clinical success 97.8%, procedure-related death 0.18%, major complications 1.9% (cardiac tamponade 1.2%, hemothorax 0.2%, tricuspid valve damage 0.3%, stroke and pulmonary embolism < 1%). The roles for cardiac surgery in TLE have been categorized into five areas: 1. Emergency cardiac surgery (1.18% of all patients), 2. Late surgical intervention (TLE-related tricuspid valve dysfunction) (0.44%), 3. Cardiac surgery complementing partially successful TLE (0.68%: removal of lead fragments), 4. Epicardial pacemaker implantation through sternotomy for the above-mentioned reasons (0.65%), 5. Delayed surgical intervention after TLE to place epicardial LV leads (0.53%). Additionally, surgical experience can help in prevention and treatment of wound infection after TLE. Conclusions: Emergency cardiac surgery (mainly due to severe bleeding) is still the most frequent reason for intervention (33.63% (38/113) of all surgical procedures). The other areas of surgical interventions in lead management are: cardiac surgery complementing partially successful TLE, repair or replacement of the malfunctioning tricuspid valve secondary to lead extraction and implantation of permanent epicardial pacing leads after sternotomy or epicardial left ventricle lead to optimize cardiac resynchronization. Experience of a single high-volume lead extraction center confirms the need for close collaboration between the cardiologist and the cardiac surgeon, whose role goes far beyond mere surgical standby.

Cardiac tamponade as an inherent but potentially nonfatal complication of transvenous lead extraction: Experience with 1126 procedures performed using mechanical tools.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac tamponade (CT) is one of the most common and dangerous complications of transvenous lead extraction (TLE). So far, however, there has been little discussion about the problem. METHODS: We analyzed the occurrence of CT in a group of 1226 patients undergoing TLE at a single reference center between June, 2015 and February, 2021. Using standard mechanical devices as first-line tools, a total of 2092 leads had been extracted. RESULTS: CT occurred in 18 patients (1.47%): due to injury to the wall of the right atrium in 14 patients (1.14%) and other cardiac walls in four patients (0.33%). Younger patient age at first implantation, female gender, high left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), lower New York Heart Association class, low Charlson comorbidity index, longer implant duration, and the number of previous procedures related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are important patient-related risk factors for CT. Significant procedure-related risk factors include the number of extracted leads, extraction of atrial leads and longer dwell time of extracted leads. Intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) provides a lot of information about pulling on various cardiac structures and is able to detect a very early phase of bleeding to the pericardial sac. As a result of implementing best practices guidance in performing extraction procedures and close collaboration with cardiac surgeons that allowed immediate rescue intervention in our series of 18 CT cases, there were no procedure-related deaths (mortality 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The need for rescue surgery due to CT has no influence on clinical and procedural success. Early diagnosed (TEE monitoring) and properly managed CT does not generate any additional risk in short- and long-term follow-up after TLE.

Severity and Extent of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in More Than 3000 Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction.

Background: Lead-related venous stenosis/obstruction (LRVSO) may be a major challenge in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) when device upgrade, insertion of central lines, or creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis is indicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent and severity of LRVSO. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 3002 venograms from patients awaiting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to assess the occurrence, severity, and extent of LRVSO. Results: Mild LRVSO occurred in 19.9%, moderate in 20.7%, severe in 19.9% and total venous occlusion in 22.5% of the patients. Moderate/severe stenosis or total occlusion of the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins was found in 38.2% and 22.5% of the patients, respectively. LRSVO was not detected in 16.9% of the patients. Moderate and severe superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction and total SVC occlusion were rare (0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Lead insertion on the left side of the chest contributed to an increased risk of LRVSO compared to right-sided implantation. Major thoracic veins on the opposite side may be narrowed in varying degrees. Conclusion: A total of 60% of the patients with pacemaker or high-voltage leads have an advanced form of LRVSO. Any attempt to insert new pacing leads, central lines, venous ports, or catheters for hemodialysis, or to create dialysis fistula on the same side as the existing lead should be preceded by venography. Furthermore, venography may provide useful information, if it is planned to implant the lead or the catheter on the opposite side of the chest.

Disparities in transvenous lead extraction in young adults.

Adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implanted at an early age constitute a specific group of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE). The aim of this study is to assess safety and effectiveness of TLE in young adults. A comparative analysis of two groups of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction was performed: 126 adults who were 19-29 years old at their first CIED implantation (early adulthood) and 2659 adults who were > 40 years of age at first CIED implantation and < 80 years of age at the time of TLE (middle-age/older adulthood). CIED-dependent risk factors were more common in young adults, especially longer implant duration (169.7 vs. 94.0 months). Moreover younger age of patients at first implantation, regardless of the dwell lead time, is a factor contributing to the greater development of connective tissue proliferation on the leads (OR 2.587; p < 0.001) and adhesions of the leads with the heart structures (OR 3.322; p < 0.001), which translates into worse TLE results in this group of patients. The complexity of procedures and major complications were more common in younger group (7.1 vs. 2.0%; p < 0.001), including hemopericardium (4.8 vs 1.3; p = 0.006) and TLE-induced tricuspid valve damage (3.2 vs.0.3%; p < 0.001). Among middle-aged/older adults, there were 7 periprocedural deaths: 6 related to the TLE procedure and one associated with indications for lead removal. No fatal complications of TLE were reported in young adults despite the above-mentioned differences (periprocedural mortality rate was comparable in study groups 0.3% vs 0.0%; p = 0.739). Predictors of TLE-associated major complications and procedure complexity were more likely in young adults compared with patients aged > 40 to < 80 years. In younger aged patients prolonged extraction duration and higher procedure complexity were combined with a greater need for second line tools. Both major and minor complications were more frequent in young adults, with hemopericardium and tricuspid valve damage being predominant.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson's comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

The role of cardiac surgeon in transvenous lead extraction: Experience from 3462 procedures.

INTRODUCTION: The professional society guidelines recommend that transvenous lead extraction (TLE) operating teams collaborate closely with cardiac surgeons in the management of life-threatening complications. METHODS: We assessed the role of cardiac surgeons participating in 3462 TLE procedures at a high-volume center between 2006 and 2021. The roles for cardiac surgery in TLE can be categorized into five areas: emergency surgical interventions for the management of cardiac laceration and severe bleeding (1.184%), cardiac surgery complementing partially successful TLE or vegetation removal (0.693%), delayed surgical treatment of TLE-related tricuspid valve dysfunction (0.751%), epicardial pacemaker implantation through sternotomy during emergency, complementing or delayed surgical interventions (0.607%), and delayed epicardial lead implantation (0.491%). RESULTS: Isolated damage to the wall of the right atrium was the most common cause of cardiac tamponade (53.66% of emergency surgeries) followed by injury to the right ventricle and vena cava (both 7.317%). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency cardiac surgery for the management of severe hemorrhagic complications is still the most common treatment option. The remaining areas include surgery complementing partially successful TLE: repair of tricuspid valve or epicardial ventricular lead placement to achieve permanent cardiac resynchronization. The experience at a single high-volume TLE center indicates the necessity of close collaboration with the cardiac surgeons whose roles appear broader than the mere surgical standby. Mortality in patients who survived cardiac surgery during TLE does not differ from the survival of other patients after TLE without complications requiring surgical intervention.

Risk Factors for Lead-Related Venous Obstruction: A Study of 2909 Candidates for Lead Extraction.

BACKGROUND: our knowledge of lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO) remains limited and there is still controversy regarding the risk factors for LRVSO. Venography is mandatory before transvenous lead extraction (TLE). METHODS: we performed a retrospective analysis of venograms in 2909 patients (39.43% females, average age 66.90 years) who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at high-volume centers. RESULTS: the severity of LRVSO was likely to be dependent on the number of leads in the system (OR = 1.345; p = 0.003), the number of abandoned leads (OR = 1.965; p < 0.001), the presence of coronary sinus leads (OR = 1.184; p = 0.056), male gender (OR = 1.349; p = 0.003) and patient age at first CIED implantation (OR = 1.008; p = 0.021). The presence of permanent atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.666; p < 0.001) and right ventricular diastolic diameter (OR = 0.978; p = 0.006) showed an inverse correlation with the degree of LRVSO. The combined three-model multivariate analysis provided better prediction of LRSVO using the above-mentioned factors than the CHA2DS2-VASc score. CONCLUSIONS: the severity of LRVSO is probably dependent on the mechanical impact of the implanted/abandoned leads on the vein wall, therefore the study has demonstrated the central role of system-/procedure-related risk factors. The thrombotic mechanism may be less important, especially long after implantation, and for this reason the combined prediction model for LRVSO in this study was more effective than the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

A Study of Major and Minor Complications of 1500 Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures Performed with Optimal Safety at Two High-Volume Referral Centers.

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the preferred management strategy for complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices. TLE sometimes can cause serious complications. Methods: Outcomes of TLE procedures using non-powered mechanical sheaths were analyzed in 1500 patients (mean age 68.11 years; 39.86% females) admitted to two high-volume centers. Results: Complete procedural success was achieved in 96.13% of patients; clinical success in 98.93%, no periprocedural death occurred. Mean lead dwell time in the study population was 112.1 months. Minor complications developed in 115 (7.65%), major complications in 33 (2.20%) patients. The most frequent minor complications were tricuspid valve damage (TVD) (3.20%) and pericardial effusion that did not necessitate immediate intervention (1.33%). The most common major complication was cardiac laceration/vascular tear (1.40%) followed by an increase in TVD by two or three grades to grade 4 (0.80%). Conclusions: Despite the long implant duration (112.1 months) satisfying results without procedure-related death can be obtained using mechanical tools. Lead remnants or severe tricuspid regurgitation was the principal cause of lack of clinical and procedural success. Worsening TR(Tricuspid regurgitation) (due to its long-term consequences), but not cardiac/vascular wall damage; is still the biggest TLE-related problem; when non-powered mechanical sheaths are used as first-line tools.