Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 34(8): 1738-1743, 2023 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37343057

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous lead extraction has become a frequent procedure in the context of device lead management and various tools are available. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the novel short rotating dilator sheath TightRailTM Sub-C (Sub-C) in transvenous lead extraction. METHODS: For this retrospective single-center analysis, we included consecutive patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction using the Sub-C from January 2018 until February 2020 at the University Heart Center Zurich. RESULTS: A total of 87 leads were extracted within 45 patients using the Sub-C extraction sheath. The mean dwell time of the leads was 112 ± 9.1 months. Complete procedural success was achieved in 95.6% (43/45) and clinical procedural success in 97.8% (44/45). Two major complications (4.4%, 2/45) occurred, but neither was directly related to the Sub-C. CONCLUSION: This retrospective single-center analysis suggests that transvenous lead extraction with a routine use of the TightRailTM Sub-C extraction sheath is a safe strategy resulting in high success rates that may offer useful theoretical benefits. Future studies are needed to evaluate the incremental benefit of a routine use of short extraction sheaths including the Sub-C during TLE procedures.


Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Marcapaso Artificial , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Remoción de Dispositivos/métodos , Diseño de Equipo , Falla de Equipo , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J ; 21(4): 201-206, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34022407

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines advocate reviewing peri-procedural anticoagulation on individual case basis for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We investigated the safety of TLE on uninterrupted warfarin with therapeutic INR. METHODS: Retrospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing TLE on uninterrupted warfarin (Warfarin Group) across two centres. Age and sex matched controls not on anticoagulation (No-Warfarin Group) and undergoing TLE over the same time-period were included. Both groups were compared over one-year. RESULTS: 121 TLEs over 18-months. 22 patients on uninterrupted anticoagulation were compared to 22 controls. Groups were well matched for baseline demographics other than INR. Warfarin group had mean INR of 2.2 ± 0.6 (range 2-3.5). Primary end point was procedural safety and efficacy. Amongst cases, 43/45 (96%) leads were removed in their entirety compared to 37/40 (93%) in controls (p = 0.66). In the cases, these included 44% defibrillator, 47% pace-sense and 9% CS leads of average duration 7yrs. There was no reported tamponade, haemothorax or procedural mortality in either group. One patient amongst cases required inotropic support while two patients amongst controls had device-site haematomas. No significant difference reported in Hb drop post-procedure or overall complication rate between the groups (p = 0.11,0.32). Cox regression showed a significant association between procedural success and device infection, number of leads extracted, serum creatinine (p = 0.03, 0.04, 0.02). Over a 1-year follow-up, there was lead displacement in one case and one control had infection of the re-implanted device. CONCLUSION: TLE can be carried out safely in anticoagulated patients with therapeutic INRs. Larger multicentre studies are required to confirm these findings.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA