Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating dilator sheath and excimer laser sheath.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an important part of comprehensive lead management. The selection of tools available has expanded in recent years but data on their efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating mechanical dilator sheath in comparison to excimer laser sheaths and describe factors predictive of successful extraction. METHODS: Patients undergoing TLE at a single tertiary center (2013-2019) were included in a prospective registry. Leads targeted for extraction with either an SLS II/Glidelight™ or TightRail™ sheath were included. Outcomes were analyzed on a per-lead basis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess differences in lead extraction success by extraction tool used while adjusting for nonindependence of multiple leads extracted from the same patient. Covariates included patient comorbidities, lead characteristics, and sheath size. RESULTS: A total of 575 leads extracted from 372 patients were included. Overall success rate was 97%. TightRail™ was the first tool used in 180 (31.3%) leads with success rate of 61.7%; laser sheaths were the first tool in 395 leads (68.7%) with success rate of 67.8%. Predictors of successful extraction included lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing. Extraction success did not differ based on whether a laser or TightRail™ sheath was used (adjusted odds ratio = 0.94; 95% confidence interval = 0.59-1.50). CONCLUSION: The TightRail™ sheath is an effective tool for TLE. Lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing were predictive of successful extraction but sheath type was not. These findings are hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in a prospective, randomized study.

Inappropriate medication administration practices in Canadian adult ICUs: a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often receive multiple medications via continuous intravenous infusion. Coadministration of multiple medications through the same port of a venous access device often is necessary but requires an assessment of compatibility. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of inappropriate coadministration of continuously infused medications via a Y-site and the use of intravenous catheters in patients in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) in a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: Data pertaining to medication compatibility via Y-site infusion (medication combinations known to be incompatible or not known to be compatible), frequency of specific medications administered via continuous infusion, and catheter use (median number, location, and types of venous catheters) were collected from medical records of 434 patients in the ICUs of 13 teaching hospitals in Canada. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of patients were receiving 2 or more medication infusions simultaneously. Forty episodes of inappropriate coadministration of these infusions were identified in 37 patients. The prevalence of inappropriate coadministration of drugs via a Y-site port in all patients was 8.5% (95% CI 5.8-11.2). The prevalence of incompatible combinations via Y-site in patients with 2 or more medication infusions was 18.7%. Twenty-five of these 37 patients could have had their drug schedules rearranged into acceptable combinations, leaving 12 patients who would have required additional intravenous access to facilitate appropriate medication infusions. Median (range) number of central and peripheral venous access devices inserted per patient were 1 (0-4) and 1 (0-5), respectively. Seventeen of 95 patients with 2 or more central venous catheters could have had their medication infusions rearranged to render 1 catheter idle. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate Y-site combinations of medications continuously infused in Canadian ICUs are common. Management of medication infusions could, however, have been optimized in most of these situations.