Transvenous lead extraction: Efficacy and safety of the procedure in female patients.

Background: Existing data on the impact of sex differences on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) outcomes in cardiac device patients are limited. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of mechanical TLE in female patients. Methods: A retrospective evaluation was performed on 3051 TLE patients (group 1: female; group 2: male) from a single tertiary referral center. All individuals received treatment using single sheath mechanical dilation and various venous approaches as required. Results: Our analysis included 3051 patients (group 1: 750; group 2: 2301), with a total of 5515 leads handled with removal. Female patients were younger, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower prevalences of coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus. Infection was more common in male patients, whereas lead malfunction or abandonment were more frequent in female patients. Radiologic success was lower in female patients (95.8% vs 97.5%; P = .003), but there was no significant difference in clinical success between groups (97.2% vs 97.5%; P = .872). However, major complications (1.33% vs 0.60%; P <.001) and procedural mortality (0.4% vs 0.1%; P <.001) were higher in females compared to male patients. After multivariate analysis, female sex emerged as the only predictor of major complications, including deaths (odds ratio 3.96; 95% confidence interval 1.39-11.24). Conclusion: TLE using unpowered simple mechanical sheaths in female patients is safe and effective, but is associated with lower radiologic success and higher complication rates and mortality than in males. This finding underscores the importance of recognizing sex differences in TLE outcomes.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Noninvasive Continuous Arterial Pressure Monitoring during Transcatheter Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is still carried out with continuous invasive radial arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring in many centers. Continuous noninvasive blood pressure (CNBP) measurement using the volume-clamp method is a noninvasive alternative method used in ICU. No data on CNBP reliability are available in the electrophysiology lab during AF ablation, where rhythm variations are common. BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to compare continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measured with the ClearSight device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) with invasive radial artery pressure used as the reference method during AF ablation. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 55 consecutive patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 80% male) undergoing transcatheter AF ablation (62% paroxysmal, 38% persistent) at our center. Standard of care IBP monitoring via a radial cannula and a contralateral noninvasive finger volume-clamp CNBP measurement device were positioned simultaneously in all patients for the entire procedure. Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze the agreement between the two techniques. RESULTS: A total of 1219 paired measurements for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure were obtained in 55 subjects, with a mean (SD) of 22 (9) measurements per patient. The mean bias (SD) was -12.97 (13.89) mmHg for systolic pressure (level of agreement -14.24-40.20; correlation coefficient 0.84), -1.85 (8.52) mmHg for diastolic pressure (level of agreement -18.54-14.84; correlation coefficient 0.77) and 2.31 (8.75) mmHg for mean pressure (level of agreement -14.84-19.46; correlation coefficient 0.85). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing AF ablation, CNBP monitoring with the ClearSight device showed acceptable agreement with IBP monitoring. Larger studies are needed to confirm the potential clinical implications of continuous noninvasive BP monitoring during AF ablation.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous mechanical lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads.

AIMS: Optimal management of redundant or malfunctioning leads is controversial. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with abandoned leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive TLE procedures performed in our centre from January 2009 to December 2017 were considered. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of mechanical TLE in patients with abandoned (Group 1) compared to non-abandoned (Group 2) leads. We analysed 1210 consecutive patients that required transvenous removal of 2343 leads. Group 1 accounted for 250 patients (21%) with a total of 617 abandoned leads (26%). Group 2 comprised 960 patients (79%) with 1726 leads (74%). The total number of leads (3.0 vs. 2.0), dwelling time of the oldest lead (108.00 months vs. 60.00 months) and infectious indications for TLE were higher in Group 1. Clinical success was achieved in 1168 patients (96.5%) with a lower rate in Group 1 (90.4% vs. 98.1%; P < 0.001). Major complications occurred in only 9 patients (0.7%), without significant differences among the two groups. The presence of one or more abandoned leads [odds ratio (OR) 3.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-11.19; P = 0.037] and dwelling time of the oldest lead (OR 1.01 for a month; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of clinical failure. CONCLUSION: Transvenous mechanical lead extraction is a safe procedure also in high-risk settings, as patients with abandoned leads. Success rate resulted a bit lower, especially in the presence of abandoned leads with long implantation time.

Transvenous lead extraction: Efficacy and safety of the procedure in octogenarian patients.

BACKGROUND: Managing elderly patients with infection or malfunction deriving from a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in elderly patients. METHODS: Patients who had undergone TLE in single tertiary referral center were divided in two groups (group 1: ≥ 80 years; group 2: < 80 years) and their acute and chronic outcomes were compared. All patients were treated with manual traction or mechanical dilatation. RESULTS: Our analysis included 1316 patients (group 1: 202; group 2: 1114 patients), with a total of 2513 leads extracted. Group 1 presented more comorbidities, more pacemakers than implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, whereas the dwelling time of the oldest lead and the number of leads were similar, irrespective of patient's age. In group 1, the radiological success rate for lead was higher (99.0% vs 95.9%; P < .001) and the fluoroscopy time lower (13.0 vs 15.0 min; P = .04) than in group 2. Clinical success was reached in 1273 patients (96.7%), without significant differences between groups (group 1: 98.0% vs group 2: 96.4%; P = .36). Major complications occurred in 10 patients (0.7%) without significative differences between patients with more or less than 80 years (group 1: 1.5% vs group 2: 0.6%; P = .24) and with no procedure-related deaths in elderly group. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical TLE in elderly patients is a safe and effective procedure. In the over-80s, a comparable incidence of major complications with younger patients was observed, with at least a similar efficacy of the procedure.