Lead extraction for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: comparable complication rates with or without abandoned leads

被引:4
|
作者
Bracke, Frank [1 ]
Verberkmoes, Niels [1 ]
van't Veer, Marcel [1 ]
van Gelder, Berry [1 ]
机构
[1] Catharina Hosp, Dept Cardiol & Cardiopulm Surg, Michelangelolaan 2, NL-5623 EJ Eindhoven, Netherlands
来源
EUROPACE | 2019年 / 21卷 / 09期
关键词
Lead extraction; Cardiac implantable electronic device infection; Abandoned leads; Complications; PACEMAKER; OUTCOMES; SAFETY; SHEATH; VOLUME; RIATA;
D O I
10.1093/europace/euz197
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims Abandoned leads are often linked to complications during lead extraction, prompting pre-emptive extraction if leads become non-functional. We examined their influence on complications when extracted for device-related infection. Methods and results All patients undergoing lead extraction for device-related infection from 2006 to 2017 in our hospital were included. The primary endpoint was major complications. Out of 500 patients, 141 had abandoned leads, of whom 75% had only one abandoned lead. Median cumulative implant times were 24.2 (interquartile range 15.6-38.2) and 11.6 (5.6-17.4), respectively years with or without abandoned leads. All leads were extracted only with a femoral approach in 50.4% of patients. Mechanical rotational tools were introduced in 2014 and used in 22.2% of cases and replacing laser sheaths that were used in 5% of patients. Major complications occurred in 0.7% of patients with abandoned leads compared with 1.7% of patients with only active leads (P = 0.679). Failure to completely remove all leads was 14.9% and 6.4%, respectively with or without abandoned leads (P = 0.003), and clinical failure was 6.4% and 2.2% (P = 0.028), respectively. Procedural failure dropped to 9.2% and 5.7% (P = 0.37), respectively after the introduction of mechanical rotational tools. The only independent predictor of procedural and clinical failure in multivariate analysis was the cumulative implant duration. Conclusion Despite longer implant times, patients with abandoned leads did not have more major complications during lead extraction. Therefore, preventive extraction of non-functional leads to avoid complications at a later stage is not warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:1378 / 1384
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] THE ROLE OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY IN IMPLANTABLE CARDIAC ELECTRONIC DEVICE INFECTION
    Cowley, Alice
    Straw, Sam
    O'Neill, James
    Sengupta, Anshuman
    Baig, Wazir
    Sandoe, Jonathon
    HEART, 2021, 107 : A132 - +
  • [42] Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients at Risk
    Tarakji, Khaldoun G.
    Ellis, Christopher R.
    Defaye, Pascal
    Kennergren, Charles
    ARRHYTHMIA & ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY REVIEW, 2016, 5 (01) : 65 - 71
  • [43] Contemporary management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection
    DeSimone, Daniel C.
    Sohail, Mohammed Rizwan
    Mulpuru, Siva Kiran
    HEART, 2019, 105 (12) : 961 - 965
  • [44] Lead Extraction for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Black-Maier, Eric
    Piccini, Jonathan P.
    Bishawi, Muath
    Pokorney, Sean D.
    Bryner, Benjamin
    Schroder, Jacob N.
    Fowler, Vance G., Jr.
    Katz, Jason N.
    Haney, John C.
    Milano, Carmelo A.
    Nicoara, Alina
    Hegland, Donald D.
    Daubert, James P.
    Lewis, Robert K.
    JACC-CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2020, 6 (06) : 672 - 680
  • [45] Incidence of subclinical cardiac perforation by cardiac implantable electronic device leads in cardiac CT
    Uhm, J. -S.
    Lim, Y. M.
    Yang, P. S.
    Kim, J. Y.
    Pak, H. N.
    Yu, H. T.
    Kim, T. H.
    Joung, B.
    Lee, M. H.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 : 364 - 364
  • [46] Outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extractions performed in centers without onsite cardiac surgery
    Mohamed, Mohamed O.
    Greenspon, Arnold
    Contractor, Tahmeed
    Rashid, Muhammad
    Kwok, Chun Shing
    Potts, Jessica
    Barker, Diane
    Patwala, Ashish
    Mamas, Mamas A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 300 : 154 - 160
  • [47] Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning
    Schvartz, Noemi
    Haidary, Arian
    Wakili, Reza
    Hecker, Florian
    Kupusovic, Jana
    Zsigmond, Elod-Janos
    Miklos, Marton
    Saghy, Laszlo
    Szili-Torok, Tamas
    Erath, Julia W.
    Vamos, Mate
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND DISEASE, 2024, 11 (04)
  • [48] Cardiac implantable electronic device infection: Does the device need to be extracted?
    Nagarakanti, Sandhya
    Bishburg, Eliahu
    Bapat, Anita
    JOURNAL OF ARRHYTHMIA, 2020, 36 (03) : 493 - 497
  • [49] Differing Impacts of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Leads on Tricuspid Regurgitation
    Leon, Sophie A.
    Austin, Melissa A.
    Parikh, Chitra
    Ahmad, Danial
    Tchantchaleishvili, Vakhtang
    Pavri, Behzad B.
    CIRCULATION, 2023, 148
  • [50] Pulmonary embolism in patients with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device leads
    Noheria, Amit
    Ponamgi, Shiva P.
    Desimone, Christopher V.
    Vaidya, Vaibhav R.
    Aakre, Christopher A.
    Ebrille, Elisa
    Hu, Tiffany
    Hodge, David O.
    Slusser, Joshua P.
    Ammash, Naser M.
    Bruce, Charles J.
    Rabinstein, Alejandro A.
    Friedman, Paul A.
    Asirvatham, Samuel J.
    EUROPACE, 2016, 18 (02): : 246 - 252