Non-laser percutaneous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillation leads: a decade of progress.

AIMS: Non-laser-based methods are safe in lead extraction but in the past have been less effective than laser methods. In the past decade, new equipment has been introduced including the Evolution® Mechanical Dilator Sheath and the Evolution® RL. We sought to determine the impact of new equipment on outcome in mechanical lead extraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We considered 288 consecutive patients (age 66 ± 18 years) who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 522 leads in the decade to the end of 2014. Three groups were identified: Group 1 (pre-Evolution® period, 76 patients, 133 leads), Group 2 (original Evolution® period, 115 patients, 221 leads), and Group 3 (Evolution® RL period, 97 patients, 168 leads). The age of leads was significantly greater in Groups 2 and 3 (6.2 ± 4.4 and 6.1 ± 5.4 years vs.4.7 ± 4.5, P < 0.05) as was the proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads (27.2 and 28.9 vs. 14.3%, P < 0.05). The groups were similar in the number of leads extracted per patient. Despite the increasing complexity of the systems extracted, complete extraction was achieved in a progressively greater proportion of leads (88.0% in Group 1, 95.5% in Group 2, and 97.6% in Group 3, P < 0.05), and procedure duration was similar. The proportion of leads for which femoral access was required was greater in Group 3 (11%, 18/164) compared with Group 2 (3%, 7/211), P = 0.006. The only major complications were a post-procedure subacute tamponade in Group 1 and an oesophageal injury related to transoesophageal echocardiography in Group 3. CONCLUSION: With current equipment, mechanical extraction provides a good combination of efficacy and safety.

Arrhythmic event prediction in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is an effective treatment to reduce mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% or less. LVEF presents a low sensitivity for predicting arrhythmic events. Aim of this study was to identify predictors of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (SVAs), overall and according to the cause of heart failure. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study of 193 patients (51 nonischemic and 142 ischemic) with chronic heart failure and LVEF less than 35% who had received ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We collected clinical data, echocardiographic parameters and SVAs detected by the ICD. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 1440 days, 32 (16.2%) patients had SVAs. SVAs incidence was similar in patients with nonischemic (15.6%) and ischemic cause of heart failure (16.9%). Hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, New York Heart Association class at least III were predictors at univariate analysis of SVAs. A clinical score, assigning one point to each of these variables, was associated with a significantly increased risk of SVAs [odds ratio for each point increase = 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.40-2.65, P < 0.0001, area under the curve (AUC) 0.73], with 72% sensitivity and 60% specificity for a cutoff at least three and remained significant in nonischemic (AUC 0.84) and ischemic (AUC 0.68) patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows the benefit of ICD implantation in primary prevention and its independency of cause. A simple clinical score, based on comorbidities, identifies patients with more benefits from ICD implantation.