Lead break during extraction - predisposing factors and impact on procedure complexity and outcome on the basis of analysis of 3825 procedures

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Background There are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for LB removal during 127 procedures. Methods Retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results Fracture of the lead defined as LB with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78% and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04%. In cases in which lead remnant was equivalent to a lead fragment (more than the lead tip only) there was a 50.31% chance of removing the LF in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity: long lead dwell time [OR=1.018], higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures and extraction of passive fixation leads. A superior approach was the most popular (75.59%), femoral (15.75%) and combined (8.66%) approaches were the least common. Broken lead fragments (BLFs) were removed in their entirety in 63.78% and BLF length was significantly reduced (to less than 4 cm) in 24.41%. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (66.67%), either free-floating or in the pulmonary circulation (68.42%) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0%). Complete procedural success was achieved in 70.87% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall and short BLFs were found in 25.98%, whereas BLFs > 4 cm were left in place in 3.15% of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96% and 1.53%). There was no procedure-related death among such patients and LB did not affect survival after TLE. Conclusions 1. LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures and it increases procedure complexity and risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning lead extraction strategy and training. 2. Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory. 3.Risk factors for lead fracture are implant duration (16.27 years on average), ventricular leads (71.65%), passive fixation leads (97.63%) and pacemaker leads (92.13%), but not ICD leads (only 7.87% of lead fractures). 4. Broken lead removal using a coronary sinus access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention.