Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in patients with lead perforation: A single-center experience.
Zhou, Xu; Ze, Feng; Li, Ding; Wang, Long; Guo, Jihong; Li, Xuebin.
Afiliação
  • Zhou X; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Ze F; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Li D; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Wang L; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Guo J; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Li X; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Clin Cardiol ; 43(4): 386-393, 2020 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31904110
BACKGROUND: Management of cardiac perforation caused by the lead of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is currently unclear. This study evaluated the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with cardiac perforation caused by a transvenous lead. HYPOTHESIS: Removal of perforated lead by transvenous approach is safe and effective. METHODS: The medical records of all patients diagnosed with cardiac perforation by a pacing or defibrillator lead in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to January 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who were managed by TLE. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients (30 men; mean age: 67 ± 15 years) with lead perforation managed by TLE were included. Most of the perforated leads (94.9%) were pacemaker leads. Forty-three leads (81.1%) were implanted within 1 year. Ten patients with a high risk of hemopericardium underwent percutaneous subxiphoid pericardial puncture prior to TLE. All 53 culprit leads were removed completely without major complications. Simple traction with or without a locking stylet was sufficient in 51 patients (96.2%). Forty-eight patients (90.6%) had a new active-fixation lead reimplanted. No patients showed evidence of new-onset or worsening pericardial effusion during the procedure and hospital stay. During a median follow-up time of 16 months, no recurrence of symptoms associated with lead perforation or CIED-related infection were reported. CONCLUSION: In most patients with lead perforation, TLE can be a safe and effective management approach.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Marca-Passo Artificial / Cateterismo Cardíaco / Desfibriladores Implantáveis / Remoção de Dispositivo / Traumatismos Cardíacos Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Marca-Passo Artificial / Cateterismo Cardíaco / Desfibriladores Implantáveis / Remoção de Dispositivo / Traumatismos Cardíacos Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article