Patient related outcomes of mechanical lead extraction techniques (PROMET) study: A comparison of two professions.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), there has been a paralleled increase in demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Cardiac surgeons (CS) and cardiologists perform TLE; however, data comparing the two groups of operators is scarce. OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of TLE performed by cardiologists and CS from six European lead extraction units. METHOD: Data was collected retrospectively of 2205 patients who had 3849 leads extracted (PROMET) between 2005 and 2018. Patient demographics and procedural outcomes were compared between the CS and cardiologist groups, using propensity score matching. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for variables associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: CS performed the majority of extractions (59.8%), of leads with longer dwell times (90 [57-129 interquartile range (IQR)] vs. 62 [31-102 IQR] months, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001) and with pre-dominantly non-infectious indications (57.4% vs. 50.2%, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001). CS achieved a higher complete success per lead than the cardiologists (98.1% vs. 95.7%, respectively, p < .01), with a higher number of minor complications (5.51% vs. 2.1%, p < .01) and similar number of major complications (0.47% vs. 1.3%, p = .12). Thirty-day mortality was similarly low in the CS and cardiologist groups (1.76% vs. 0.94%, p = .21). Unmatched data multivariate analysis revealed infection indication (OR 6.12 [1.9-20.3], p < .01), procedure duration (OR 1.01 [1.01-1.02], p < .01) and CS operator (OR 2.67, [1.12-6.37], p = .027) were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE by CS was performed with similar safety and higher efficacy compared to cardiologists in high and medium-volume lead extraction centers.

Persistent left superior vena cava transvenous lead extraction: A European experience.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is rising in parallel to cardiac implantable electronic device implantations. Persistent left side superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a relatively common anatomical variant in the healthy population; TLE in patients with a PLSVC is rare. METHOD: Data were collated from 6 European TLE institutes of 10 patients who had undergone lead extraction with a PLSVC. Patient demographics, procedural challenges and outcomes were reported. RESULTS: Ten patients aged 73.4 ± 7.8 years (60% male) underwent TLE of 20 leads (3 left ventricle, 10 right ventricle, 7 right atrium) with dwell time of 82.95 ± 39.1 months. Of the 10 cases, 4 had an infection indication and 5 were biventricular system extractions; 25% of the extracted leads were defibrillator leads. The majority of the procedures were completed in the cardiac catheterization suite (80%) under general anaesthesia (60%) by cardiologists (80%) using a rotational powered sheath (65%). The Tandem approach was used successfully in 3 cases. Complete procedural success was obtained in 100% of cases in the absence of complications within 127.4 ± 74.7 min. There was no 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE in PLSVC is feasible albeit rare. Standard extraction techniques in experienced hands are associated with favorable outcomes; the Tandem procedure may be an additional technique to improve the safety and efficacy of TLE in PLSVC.

Transvenous lead extraction: The influence of age on patient outcomes in the PROMET study cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy contributes to an improvement in morbidity and mortality across all patient demographics. Patient age is a recognized risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in invasive procedures. This is the largest series of non-laser transvenous lead extraction (TLE) evaluating the association between patient age and procedure outcomes. METHODS: Data of 2205 (3849 leads) patients was collected retrospectively from six European TLE centers between January 2005-December 2018 in the PROMET study. Of these, 153 patients with 319 leads were excluded for incomplete data. A comparison of outcomes was performed between the age groups young [< 50 years], young intermediate [50-69 years], older intermediate [70-79 years], and octogenarian [≥80 years]. RESULTS: Infection was most common indication for TLE in the octogenarian cohort, less common in the younger population (60.1% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p < .01). High-voltage leads were extracted most frequently from young patients, less frequently from octogenarians (31.6% vs. 10%, p < .001), while the opposite was evident for pacemaker leads (p < .001). Rotational sheath use was equally prevalent across all patient groups (p = .79). Minor and major complications across all the age groups were statistically similar, as was procedural success; the 30-day mortality was most significant in the octogenarian and least in the young patients (4.9% vs. 0.4%, p = .005). Propensity matching multivariate analysis found systemic infection, lead dwell time, and patient age (p = .013, OR 1.064 [1.013-1.116]) increased risk of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE is safe and effective across all age groups. 30-day mortality risk is significantly higher in the older patients.

Results of the Patient-Related Outcomes of Mechanical lead Extraction Techniques (PROMET) study: a multicentre retrospective study on advanced mechanical lead extraction techniques.

AIMS: Several large studies have documented the outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), focusing on laser and mechanical methods. To date there has been no large series addressing the results obtained with rotational lead extraction tools. This retrospective multicentre study was designed to investigate the outcomes of mechanical and rotational techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected on a total of 2205 patients (age 66.0 ± 15.7 years) with 3849 leads targeted for extraction in six European lead extraction centres. The commonest indication was infection (46%). The targeted leads included 2879 pacemaker leads (74.8%), 949 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (24.6%), and 21 leads for which details were unknown; 46.6% of leads were passive fixation leads. The median lead dwell time was 74 months [interquartile range (IQR) 41-112]. Clinical success was obtained in 97.0% of procedures, and complete extraction was achieved for 96.5% of leads. Major complications occurred in 22/2205 procedures (1%), with a peri-operative or procedure-related mortality rate of 4/2205 (0.18%). Minor complications occurred in 3.1% of procedures. A total of 1552 leads (in 992 patients) with a median dwell time of 106 months (IQR 66-145) were extracted using the Evolution rotational TLE tool. In this subgroup, complete success was obtained for 95.2% of leads with a procedural mortality rate of 0.4%. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes in the PROMET study compare favourably with other large TLE trials, underlining the capability of rotational TLE tools and techniques to match laser methods in efficacy and surpass them in safety.

A worldwide experience of the management of battery failures and chronic device retrieval of the Nanostim leadless pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: The Nanostim leadless pacemaker (LP) met the primary endpoints in an investigational device exemption trial, and was shown to be fully retrievable percutaneously. In October 2016, St Jude Medical issued a worldwide alert of a battery malfunction that caused lost pacing output and LP communication. OBJECTIVE: To report the battery failure mechanism and incidence and the worldwide patient management, including device retrieval experiences. METHODS: The affected LP battery is a custom lithium-carbon monofluoride cell. These were returned after failure and underwent analysis assessing electronics and battery performance. Data were collected in ongoing clinical studies when LPs were abandoned or retrieved. RESULTS: Of 1423 LPs implanted worldwide, there were 34 battery failures, occurring at 2.9 ± 0.4 years with no instances of associated patient injury. Analysis of returned batteries revealed an increase in battery resistance caused by insufficient electrolyte availability at the cathode/anode interface. A total of 66 of 73 retrieval attempts were successful (90.4%; implant duration range: 0.2-4.0 years). The LP docking button was inaccessible in 6 patients, and the docking button detached from the LP during retrieval in 1 patient. There was 1 case of arteriovenous fistula and another case of the LP docking button migrating into the pulmonary artery. There were also 115 non-LP retrieval patients after the advisory who received an additional pacemaker, with no adverse device-to-device interactions reported. CONCLUSION: As with standard pacers, LPs can have critical battery failures. Chronic retrieval of LPs is safe and efficacious.