Comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of Evolution® and TightRail™ mechanical dilator sheaths during transvenous lead extraction.

BACKGROUND: Powered transvenous lead extraction (TLE) tools are commonly required to remove the leads with long implant duration due to fibrotic adhesions. However, comparative data are lacking among different types of TLE tools. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of two different rotational mechanical dilator sheaths in retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TLE. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 566 lead extractions from 302 patients using TightRail™ (333 lead extractions from 169 patients) and Evolution® (233 lead extractions from 133 patients) mechanical dilator sheaths were performed between July 2009 and June 2018. Acute and long-term outcomes of study groups were compared. There is no statistically significant difference between Evolution® and TightRail™ groups in procedural success (93.9% vs. 94%), clinical success (99.2% vs. 98%), and major complications (3.8% vs. 1.2%), respectively (p > .05). In multivariate regression analysis, lead dwell time, the number of extracted leads, and baseline leukocyte count were found as independent predictors of procedural success (p < .05). During the median follow-up of 36.6 (0.2-118) months, all-cause mortality was observed in 73 patients (25.6% in the Evolution® vs. 23.1 in the TightRail™ group, p > .05). Chronic renal disease, heart failure, and coagulopathy were shown as independent predictors of all-cause mortality in multivariate regression analysis (p < .05). CONCLUSION: TLE using TightRail™ or Evoluation® mechanical dilator sheaths was a safe and effective therapeutic option. Both mechanical dilator sheaths showed similar efficacy, safety, and all-cause mortality at acute and long-term follow-up of patients who underwent TLE.

A rare cause of cyanosis and hypoxia that should not be forgotten after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

Transvenous pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedures are usually performed under local anesthetic, and prilocaine is the most common agent to be used. The data regarding methemoglobinemia after cardiac device implantation are scarce. Thus, presently described is the case of a 47-year-old female patient with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia who underwent ICD implantation for secondary prophylaxis and developed cyanosis as a result of prilocaine-associated methemoglobinemia. Prilocaine was administered during the procedure. To our knowledge, this is the second case in the literature presenting methemoglobinemia due to local anesthetic after transvenous cardiac device implantation.