Computed tomography predictors of increased transvenous lead extraction difficulty.

BACKGROUND: The ability of computed tomography (CT) characteristics to predict the difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an evolving subject. OBJECTIVE: To identify CT characteristics associated with increased TLE difficulty. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing TLE at the University of California San Diego from January 2018 to February 2022 were analyzed, utilizing the UC San Diego Lead Extraction Registry. Patients underwent cardiac-gated chest CT scans with intravenous contrast; all scans were reviewed by a single radiologist. Lead extraction was performed per standard institutional protocol with the initial use of a laser sheath and crossover to a mechanical sheath as needed. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time and mechanical sheath use, as markers of extraction difficulty. RESULTS: A total of 343 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the study population was 63.8 ± 15.4 years; 71% were male. The mean lead dwell-in duration was 8.6 ± 5.7 years. In multivariable linear regression analysis, venous occlusion detected on CT was independently associated with higher individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), when adjusting for clinical characteristics such as lead dwell time. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, calcification and venous occlusion were independently associated with a higher need for mechanical sheath use during TLE (odds ratio:5.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.54-10.46) and (odds ratio:3.72, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.89-7.35), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing TLE, venous occlusion identified by chest CT is associated with increased fluoroscopy time. Patients with lead-associated calcification or venous occlusion detected by chest CT are each five and three times more likely to require crossover from laser to a mechanical sheath.

A head-to-head comparison of laser vs. powered mechanical sheaths as first choice and second line extraction tools.

AIMS: During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools. METHODS AND RESULTS: Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating dilator sheath and excimer laser sheath.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an important part of comprehensive lead management. The selection of tools available has expanded in recent years but data on their efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating mechanical dilator sheath in comparison to excimer laser sheaths and describe factors predictive of successful extraction. METHODS: Patients undergoing TLE at a single tertiary center (2013-2019) were included in a prospective registry. Leads targeted for extraction with either an SLS II/Glidelight™ or TightRail™ sheath were included. Outcomes were analyzed on a per-lead basis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess differences in lead extraction success by extraction tool used while adjusting for nonindependence of multiple leads extracted from the same patient. Covariates included patient comorbidities, lead characteristics, and sheath size. RESULTS: A total of 575 leads extracted from 372 patients were included. Overall success rate was 97%. TightRail™ was the first tool used in 180 (31.3%) leads with success rate of 61.7%; laser sheaths were the first tool in 395 leads (68.7%) with success rate of 67.8%. Predictors of successful extraction included lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing. Extraction success did not differ based on whether a laser or TightRail™ sheath was used (adjusted odds ratio = 0.94; 95% confidence interval = 0.59-1.50). CONCLUSION: The TightRail™ sheath is an effective tool for TLE. Lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing were predictive of successful extraction but sheath type was not. These findings are hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in a prospective, randomized study.

Comparison between TightRail rotating dilator sheath and GlideLight laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the comparative analyses of TightRail rotating dilator sheath (Philips) and laser sheath for lead extraction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TightRail sheath as a primary or secondary tool for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of 202 consecutive patients who underwent TLE using either TightRail sheath and/or GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) in our hospital. The study population was divided into three groups: Group A underwent TLE with laser sheath only (N = 157), Group B with TightRail sheath only (N = 22), and Group C with both sheaths (N = 23). RESULTS: During this period, 375 leads in 202 patients were extracted, including 297 leads extracted by laser sheath alone, 45 leads by TightRail sheath alone, and 33 by both TightRail sheath and laser sheaths. The most common indications included device infection (44.6%) and lead-related complications (44.1%). The median age of leads was 8.9 years. TightRail sheath (Group B) achieved similar efficacy as a primary extraction tool compared with laser sheath (Group A), with complete procedure success rate of 93.3% (vs. 96.6%, P = .263) and clinical success rate of 100.0% (vs. 98.1%, P = .513). Among 32 leads in which Tightrail was used after laser had failed (Group C), the complete procedure success rate was 75.8%. No significant difference in procedural adverse events was observed. CONCLUSION: Our single-center experience confirms that the TightRail system is an effective first-line and second-line method for TLE. Further investigation is required to guide the selection of mechanical and laser sheaths in lead extraction cases.

Mechanical extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices leads with long dwell time: Efficacy and safety of the step up approach.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the stepwise mechanical transvenous lead extraction approach in a patient population with chronically implanted transvenous leads with a long dwell time. From January 2014 till December 2018, all lead extractions with lead dwell time ≥5 years performed at our tertiary centre were retrospectively analysed. A total of 173 leads, from 78 patients (median age 68 years; 81% male) with a median dwell time of 9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 5) were extracted, with three or more leads in 42% of the patients. Right atrial leads: 41%; right ventricular pacing leads: 16%; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads: 31% (72% dual coil); coronary sinus leads: 12%. The majority (75%) of the leads had an active fixation. Most frequent indication for extraction was pocket infection/erosion (76%). Overall clinical success was 97%, and complete procedural success was 93%. Venous patency, assessed with venous angiography, was well preserved in 93% of the cases. The overall procedural complication rate was 3.8% (2.6% major and 1.3% minor). Despite the complexity of the population and a very long dwell time (median 9 years), a clinical success rate of 97% was achieved with the stepwise mechanical approach. Analysis of impeding progression of pectoral extraction suggests that dense fibrosis and sharp lead curvature in the transvenous trajectory pose a challenge. Complication rate was low, and acute venous patency was generally well preserved.

Efficacy and safety of transvenous lead extraction using a liberal combined superior and femoral approach.

PURPOSE: During transvenous lead extraction (TLE), the femoral snare has mainly been used as a bail-out procedure. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a TLE approach with a low threshold to use a combined superior and femoral approach. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study including all TLE procedures between 2012 till 2019. RESULTS: A total of 264 procedures (median age 63 (51-71) years, 67.0% male) were performed in the study period. The main indications for TLE were lead malfunction (67.0%), isolated pocket infection (17.0%) and systemic infection (11.7%). The median dwelling time of the oldest targeted lead was 6.8 (4.0-9.7) years. The techniques used to perform the procedure were the use of a femoral snare only (30%), combined rotational powered sheath and femoral snare (25%), manual traction only (20%), rotational powered sheath only (17%) and locking stylet only (8%). The complete and clinical procedural success rate was 90.2% and 97.7%, respectively, and complete lead removal rate was 94.1% of all targeted leads. The major and minor procedure-related complication rates were 1.1% and 10.2%, respectively. There was one case (0.4%) of emergent sternotomy for management of cardiac avulsion. Furthermore, there were 5 in-hospital non-procedure-related deaths (1.9%), of whom 4 were related to septic shock due to a Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis after an uncomplicated TLE with complete removal of all leads. CONCLUSION: An effective and safe TLE procedure can be achieved by using the synergy between a superior and femoral approach.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Extraction: First Multicenter French Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this multicenter study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) lead extraction procedures. BACKGROUND: S-ICDs have been developed to limit lead-related complications inherent to transvenous ICD devices. To date, no study has specifically investigated the safety and feasibility of S-ICD lead extraction procedures. METHODS: Patients requiring S-ICD lead extraction between February 1, 2014, and February 28, 2019, were retrospectively included in 10 centers. The primary endpoint of the study was procedural success, defined as the removal of all the lead and lead material from the subcutaneous space. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications and the need for specific extraction tools. RESULTS: S-ICD lead extraction procedures were performed in 32 patients (mean age 45.7 ± 13.8 years, 75.0% men, 65.6% in primary prevention). The median time from S-ICD lead implantation was 9.3 months (5.4 to 17.5 months). The primary endpoint, that is, complete removal of the material, was achieved in 96.9% of the patients, and only 1 procedural failure occurred (3.1%). Simple traction of the S-ICD lead was successful in 19 patients (59.4%), whereas 3 patients (9.4%) needed an additional incision and 9 patients (28.1%) required mechanical sheath to remove lead adhesions around the coil. No procedure-related complications occurred. Patients with successful simple traction extraction were implanted more recently (7.1 months [2.8 to 12.2 months] vs. 16.5 months [7.5 to 20.8 months]; p = 0.04) and had less prior history of sternotomy (2 [10.5%] vs. 5 [38.5%] patients; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: S-ICD lead extraction is an efficient and safe procedure, but may require some specific tools like mechanical sheath, specifically when fibrotic adhesions developed around the parasternal coil.

Successful inferior vena cava filter removal using pacemaker lead extraction methods.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are often used to treat deep vein thrombosis. IVC filters may become difficult to extract because of adhesion around the device, and those permanently left inside the patient may cause injurious complications. We describe a novel IVC filter extraction technique using pacemaker lead extraction tools. A 26-year-old woman, diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis by computed tomography, received an IVC filter (Gunther Tulip, Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) implantation for prevention of pulmonary thromboembolism. Eleven weeks later, extraction of the IVC filter by a manual method and snaring technique was unsuccessful because of adhesion to the blood vessel wall. The patient was referred to our hospital for filter removal using pacemaker lead extraction tools. Extraction was performed in an operation room under general anesthesia in the presence of a cardiovascular surgeon, to manage inadvertent perforation. Part of the adhered tissue around the four limbs of the filter was dissected using a 12 Fr laser sheath; protruding anchors were carefully dissected with a telescoping mechanical sheath using a counter-traction technique. Her postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged without complications. A sophisticated removal procedure with pacemaker lead extraction tools can be used to remove problematic IVC filters. .

Single-center experience with percutaneous lead extraction of cardiac implantable electric devices.

BACKGROUND: The estimated incidence of infected cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) has recently increased to 1-2% in Japan. Extraction of long-term implanted devices is generally difficult. There are few reports about lead extraction in Japan. We describe our experience with and outcomes of lead extraction using excimer lasers, mechanical sheaths, and manual extraction. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the characteristics, types of devices, and indications for extraction in 29 patients with 67 leads who required CIED lead extraction at Shinshu University Hospital between April 2014 and October 2016. Mean patient age was 71 years and 25 patients were male. The indications for device extraction were infections (n=25) and non-functioning leads (n=4). RESULTS: A total of 67 leads (active fixation lead, n=28; passive fixation lead, n=39) had been implanted for a median duration of 6.3±5.6 years. Extractions were performed using an excimer laser sheath (n=26), laser with mechanical sheath (n=7), only mechanical sheath (Cook Vascular Inc., Leechburg, PA, USA) (n=1), and manually (n=1). The procedure was successful in all patients. There were no major or minor complications during extraction. There was no recurrence of infection after infected device extraction. Two patients were implanted with subcutaneous implantable defibrillators after extraction of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). CONCLUSIONS: CIED lead extraction, especially of those that are adherent to the subclavian vein, can be successfully performed in Japanese subjects using an excimer laser and mechanical sheath, without complications.

Successful pacemaker lead extraction involving an ossified thrombus: A case report.

A 41-year-old woman who had been fitted with a pacemaker 18 years prior presented for lead extraction because of device infection. First, we tried laser sheath. However, it cannot cross the binding in the innominate vein. Then we switched to the rotating mechanical sheath. Although it crunched through binding tissue, the progress halted. We removed the sheath and found pieces of calcified tissue in the sheath lumen. After removing the calcified tissue, both leads were extracted using the laser sheath, without complications. The pathological examination revealed a diagnosis of ossified thrombus. Venous thromboses associated with implanted leads can ossify with time, causing difficulties in the extraction of long-standing intravascular leads.