RÉSUMÉ
AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.
Sujet(s)
Défibrillateurs implantables , Pacemaker , Humains , Défibrillateurs implantables/effets indésirables , Veine cave supérieure/chirurgie , Ablation de dispositif/effets indésirables , Ablation de dispositif/méthodes , Lasers , Cathétérisme cardiaque , Pacemaker/effets indésirables , Résultat thérapeutique , Études rétrospectivesRÉSUMÉ
Primary- and secondary-prevention trials involving subjects with or at risk for coronary artery disease have previously demonstrated a beneficial effect of conventional-dose statin therapy. Recent trials of high-dose statin therapy in subjects with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes have yielded conflicting results. The aim of this narrative article is to provide a critical and up-to-date summary of the findings of clinical trials of intensive statin therapy, including a brief overview of the safety and efficacy of such treatments.