Indications For Transvenous Lead Extraction Research Articles

Outcome of transvenous lead extraction in nonagenarians: A single-center retrospective study.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infections has increased. The incidence of TLE in nonagenarians is low, with limited reports outlining the outcomes of this procedure. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to clarify the outcomes of TLE in nonagenarians. Patients with TLE treated at our hospital between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively examined; patient characteristics, device type, indications, procedures, complications, and clinical data of nonagenarians were analyzed. Of 12 patients with 24 leads (active fixation lead, n=11; passive fixation lead, n=13) who underwent TLE, the indication for TLE was infection (pocket infection, n=8; sepsis, n=4). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most frequently identified causative agent (n=4). The median patient age was 91 years; five patients were female. The median lead dwell time was 9 years. Excimer laser sheath (16 leads), mechanical sheath (five leads), Evolution RL (one lead), and manual traction (two leads) were employed in TLE. The procedure was successful in all patients, and only one had a minor complication. Six patients required CIED re-implantation, and leadless pacemakers were selected for five patients. The 30-day mortality after TLE was 0%. TLE can be safely performed in nonagenarians. The decision to perform TLE should not be based on old age alone; the suitability of removing infected CIEDs should be determined based on each patient's condition.

Abstract 18561: Trends Among Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Single Center Experience

Background: In recent years there has been an increase in cardiac device-related infections and the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Limited data exist on secular trends in baseline characteristics and outcome measures among patients undergoing this high-risk procedure. Objective: To examine secular trends in baseline characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing lead extraction procedure at our institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing TLE from 2010 to 2021, at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into three epochs (2010-2013, 2014-2017 and 2018-2021). Baseline characteristics in hospital length of stay (LOS) and survival were compared between groups. Results: A total of 794 patients, with a mean age of 64±16 years, were analyzed. 481 (60%) patients had infection as the indication for TLE. On average, 2 ± 1 leads were extracted per patient. The longest lead dwell time was 6.5 ± 4.8 years. Significant progressive increase in baseline comorbidity over time is noted (Table 1). A concomitant increase in infection indication versus lead management was also noted. There was a significant increase in the median hospital LOS across epochs; 3.88 IQR (1.26-10.06) for epoch 1 vs 7.34 IQR (2.25-13.35) for epoch 2, vs 9.06 IQR (5.78-14.05) for epoch 3 (P < 0.0001). While there was no difference in long term survival curves (log rank p =0.4), between group analysis showed higher risk for 30 day [RR 2.24(1.08-4.66) p=0.0306] and 1 year mortality [RR 1.44 (1.004-2.05) p=0.0478] between epoch 3 vs epoch 1. Conclusion: Across epochs, the number of TLE procedures performed decreased while patient morbidity increased with a notable increase in infection indication for the procedure. This corresponded to a progressive increase in hospital LOS and an emergent signal toward increased near-term mortality.

Transvenous lead extraction, factors affecting procedural difficulty

Background A complex transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedure could be associated with lower success and higher complication rates in inexperienced hands. In this study, we aim to assess the factors that determine procedural difficulty in TLE. Methods We retrospectively studied 200 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single referral centre from June 2020 to December 2021. Lead extraction difficulty was assessed by the success of simple manual traction with or without a locking stylet, the need for advanced extraction tools and the number of tools required to extract the lead. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to determine the factors independently affecting these 3 parameters. Results 363 leads were extracted from 200 patients (79% males, mean age 66.85 years). The indication for TLE was device-related infection in 51.5%. Multivariate analysis revealed the lead indwelling time to be the only factor affecting the 3 parameters of difficulty. Passive fixation leads and dual coil leads increased procedural difficulty by affecting 2 parameters each. Factors that affected one parameter included infected leads, coronary sinus leads, older age of the patient and a history of valvular heart disease, all associated with a simpler procedure. Right ventricular leads were associated with a more complex one. Conclusion The most important factor that increased TLE procedural difficulty was a longer lead indwelling time, followed by passive fixation and dual-coil leads. Other contributing factors were the presence of infection, coronary sinus leads, older patients, a history of valvular heart disease and right ventricular leads.

Simultaneous transvenous lead extraction and implantation of leadless cardiac pacemaker: A case report

AbstractCardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a serious complication and remains the most common indication for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). In addition, there are serious challenges such as venous access occlusion and reinfection after extraction. Leadless pacemaker (LP) provides a safe and effective pacing option for patients with device‐related infections. We describe here a case of simultaneous transvenous lead extraction and leadless pacemaker implantation due to bilateral venous infection and pacing dependency.

PO-02-081 PERCUTANEOUS REMOVAL OF LARGE VEGETATION FACILITATES SAFE TRANSCUTANEOUS LEAD EXTRACTION: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

Infective endocarditis (IE) is the most common indication for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), and it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Complete removal of the device in addition to antibiotics is required, however large vegetations (>2-3cm) on either the lead or the tricuspid valve confer a high risk of vegetation embolization with standard lead extraction. Vegetation size larger than 2cm appear to have higher incidence of intraprocedural clinically significant pulmonary embolism. An open surgical approach is usually recommended in this situation to mitigate the risk of embolization, however, surgical extraction is associated with increased morbidity/mortality and in some patients the risk is prohibitive. Percutaneous approach to remove large vegetations from tricuspid valve has been reported to be safe in several recent case reports The purpose of our study is to describe our single-center experience of the management of patients with a large vegetation involving the leads and/or the tricuspid valve. The use of percutaneous tricuspid valve/lead vegetation removal permitted or facilitated successful TLE avoiding cardiothoracic surgery We reviewed the perioperative course of 5 consecutive patients with large tricuspid valve and/or lead vegetation referred for device/lead extraction due to endocarditis. Patients with large vegetations considered at increased risk of embolization with transcutaneous extraction were referred for percutaneous vegectomy prior to TLE. Vegectomy procedure is done at our institution using the percutaneous catheter-based system FlowTriever aspiration catheter with FLEX technology (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA USA) with the guidance of intracardiac echocardiogram through femoral vein access (Figure 1). Over a 15-month period, 5 patients presented with large vegetations that precluded TLE due to embolization risk. Four patients (80%) were male, with an average age of 60 years, and the average vegetation size was 2.7 cm (2.4-3.2 cm). All patients underwent vegectomy followed by lead extraction as a staged procedure without complication. All patients survived the index hospitalization (see Table 1 for details) Percutaneous removal of large tricuspid valve/lead vegetations prior to lead extraction is a safe and effective way to manage patient with endocarditis and large vegetations thereby avoiding the morbidity and mortality associated with open heart surgeryTabled 1Table 1Patient #Age (years)Device Type# of LeadsOrganismVegetation Size (cm)Vegetation LocationComplications166CRT-D3MSSA2.5RV LeadNone263DC PPM2No growth2.4RA/RV LeadNone368CRT-D (HIS Lead)3Streptococcus2.5RA LeadNone456ICD (Dual Coil)1Corynebacterium3.0RV Lead/TVNone548DC PPM2MRSA3.2RA LeadNoneCRT-D: Cardiac resynchronization therapy – defibrillator; MSSA: Methicillin sensitive staph aureus; RV: right ventricular; DC PPM: Dual chamber permanent pacemaker; RA: right atrial; ICD: implantable cardioverter defibrillator; MRSA: Methicillin resistant staph aureus; TV: Tricuspid valve Open table in a new tab

Mechanical extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads with a dwell time of more than 10 years: insights from a single high-volume centre.

To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a dwell time of >10 years (Group A) vs. younger leads (Group B) using mechanical extraction systems. Between October 2011 and July 2022, we performed TLE in 318 patients. Forty-six (14.4%) extracted ICD leads in 46 (14.5%) patients that had been implanted for >10 years. The median dwell time of all extracted ICD leads was 5.9 years. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 31.8% of patients. Complete ICD leads removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (95.7% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056% and 95.6% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056, respectively). We did not find a significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (6.5% in Group A vs. 1.5% in Group B and 2.2% in Group A vs. 1.8% in Group B, P = 0.082, respectively). One death associated with the TLE procedure was recorded in Group B. The TLE procedures involving the extraction of old ICD leads were effective and safe. The outcomes of ICD lead removal with a dwell time of >10 years did not differ significantly compared with younger ICD leads. However, extraction of older ICD leads required more frequent necessity for utilizing multiple extraction tools, more experience and versatility of the operator, and increased surgery costs.

Same-day discharge after transvenous lead extraction: feasibility and outcomes.

Same-day discharge (SDD) is safe for patients undergoing electrophysiology procedures. There is no existing data regarding SDD for patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We report our experience with SDD for patients undergoing TLE. The study group included patients undergoing TLE between February 2020 and July 2021 without an infectious indication. A modified SDD protocol for device implants/ablations was applied to TLE patients. Patient characteristics, extraction details, outcomes, and complications were reviewed. Of 239 patients undergoing TLE, 210 were excluded (94 infections and 116 did not meet SDD criteria). Of the remaining 29 patients, seven stayed due to patient preference and 22 were discharged home the same day. The SDD group had an average age of 65.9 ± 12 (47-84), 41% female, and LVEF of 52.2 ± 18% (10-80). The indication for TLE was malfunction (20), upgrade (4), advisory lead (2), and magnetic resonance imaging compatibility (1). Extractions included four implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), 17 pacemakers (PPM), and one cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-P system. The leads were 9.6 years (1.5-21.7) old, and 1.8 leads were removed per patient (1-3); the lead extraction difficulty (LED) score was 11.6 ± 7. Twenty underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) re-implantation (2 ICD, 3 CRT-D, 13 PPM, and 2 CRT-P). For CIED re-implants, patients sent a remote transmission the next day, and all patients received a next-day call. There were no procedure or device-related issues, morbidities, or mortalities in the 30 days after discharge. Same-day discharge after TLE for non-infectious aetiologies is safe and feasible in a select group of patients with early procedure completion who meet strict SDD criteria.

Occluded vein as a predictor for complications in non-infectious transvenous lead extraction.

BackgroundThe use of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) is steadily increasing, and complications include venous occlusion and fractured leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can facilitate the re-implantation of new leads.AimsThis study aims to explore predictors and complications of non-infectious TLE.MethodsThis study involves a retrospective analysis and comparison of characteristics, complications, and outcomes of patients with and without occluded veins (OVs) undergoing TLE at our center.ResultsIn total, eighty-eight patients underwent TLE for non-infectious reasons. Indications for TLE were lead malfunction (62; 70.5%) and need for CIED upgrade (22; 25%). Fourteen patients referred due to lead malfunction had an OV observed during venography. The OV group (36 patients) were significantly older (65.7 ± 14.1 vs. 53.8 ± 15.9, p = 0.001) and had more comorbidities. Ejection fraction (EF) was significantly lower for the OV group (27.5 vs. 57.5%, p = 0.001) and had a longer lead dwelling time (3,226 ± 2,324 vs. 2,191 ± 1,355 days, p = 0.012). Major complications were exclusive for the OV group (5.5% vs. none, p = 0.17), and most minor complications occurred in the OV group as well (33.3 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001). Laser sheath and mechanical tools for TLE were frequently used for OV as compared to the non-occluded group (94.4 vs. 73.5%, respectively, p = 0.012). Procedure success was higher in the non-occluded group compared to the OV group (98 vs. 83.3%, respectively, p = 0.047). Despite these results, periprocedural mortality was similar between groups.ConclusionAmong the TLE for non-infectious reasons, vein occlusion appears as a major predictor of complex TLE tool use, complications, and procedural success. Venography should be considered prior to non-infectious TLE to identify high-risk patients.

Social Media in Physician Education.

BackgroundSocial media has fundamentally changed the practice of medicine. It has taken the medical community by storm, benefited patient care, and has become a leading source for distributing medical information. Social media platforms are a low-cost, low-barrier entry means for health systems to highlight their competitive advantage to patients and providers alike. This study aimed to assess the role of social media in the education of physicians.MethodsTo evaluate the utility of social media in engaging physicians, four vignettes were utilized to highlight Class 1 indications for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), an electrophysiology procedure aimed at removing infected or damaged cardiac device leads. Individuals, via Twitter, were presented with cases and multiple-choice response options to determine the next best step in management.ResultsThe clinical vignettes were seen by more than 18,000 individuals worldwide. Survey results indicated that 83% of individuals who participated had correctly identified class 1 indications for this life-saving procedure. Sixteen percent to 21% of physicians incorrectly identified the next step in the management of Class 1 indications for lead extraction, representing a need for education and an opportunity to inform and educate.ConclusionSocial media may be a useful tool in physician education. However, guidelines and further research are needed to continue to understand the role of social media within the medical field.

Outcome of transvenous lead extraction of leads older than 20 years

In patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE), lead dwell time has been recognized as a risk factor for extraction failure and procedure-related complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with pacemaker or ICD leads with a dwell time of ≥20 years. This is a single-center retrospective study of all patients who underwent TLE of at least 1 pacemaker or ICD leads a dwell time of ≥20 years. During the study period, 124 patients were included in this analysis (50.8% female, mean age: 74.6 ± 10.7 years). Device-related infection was the most common (92.7%) indication for TLE. Extraction was attempted for a total 313 leads, of which 182 leads had dwell times ≥20 years (median: 276 months; interquartile range: 255-300 months). Complete procedural success was achieved in 112/124 patients (90.3%), and clinical success in 119/124 patients (96.0%). Complete removal was achieved for 294 leads (93.9%), partial removal in 10 leads, and failure in 9 leads. Clinical success (combined complete and partial success) rates were higher for leads with dwell times <20 years compared to older leads (99.2% vs. 95.6%, p = .017). Major procedural complications (including 1 death) occurred in 7/124 patients (5.6%). Minor complications were observed in 8 patients (6.5%). TLE of very old (≥20 years) leads can be performed with reasonable success and safety when conducted at centers with expertise in lead management.

PROMET: The effect of operator profession on non-laser transvenous lead extraction

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. OnBehalf PROMET group Background As implantation of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) rises globally, there is a paralleled need for extraction of these devices. Indications for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is expanding, fuelling demand. This lifesaving procedure is performed by cardiologists and cardiac surgeons (CS). Cardiologists are familiar with transvenous methods whilst cardiac surgeons possess the skillset to address the significant complications associated with this procedure. We compared non-laser TLE outcomes performed by cardiologists and cardiac surgeons from six high-volume extraction centres across Europe. Methods Data was collected retrospectively from six major European TLE centres of 2205 patients and 3849 leads (PROMET). Propensity 1:1 score matching (PSM) was performed to account for confounding variables. PSM model with variables: lead dwell time, infection indication, biventricular system and defibrillator device, was best matched. This dataset was analysed to compare outcomes of TLE performed by the cardiologists and CS. Predictors of 30-day mortality and complications were identified using a multivariate regression analysis. Results Patients treated by CS and cardiologists were similar in age (64.7 vs 66.7 years, p = NS) and equally male (70.3% vs 72.3%, p = 0.39) with a parallel infectious indication (51.7% vs 47.6%, p = 0.1). Surgeons achieved a significantly higher proportion of clinical success than cardiologists (98.9% vs 96.4%, p = 0.001) and complete lead extraction (98% vs 95.9%, p &amp;lt; 0.01) with a higher rate of minor complications (4.1% vs 2.2%, p = 0.024); major complications were similar (0.9% vs 1.2%, respectively, p = 0.46) as was 30-day mortality (3.2% vs 2%, respectively, p = 0.28). Multivariate regression analysis revealed systemic infection (p &amp;lt; 0.001, OR 7.2 [CI 2.3-20.1]) and defibrillator system extraction (p = 0.025, OR 3.4 [CI 1.2-10.2]) increased the odds of 30-day mortality, whilst Evolution™ sheath use reduced the odds (p = 0.025, OR 0.34 [CI 0.13-0.88]); lead dwell time (p = 0.02, OR 1.005 [1-1.009] and Evolution™ sheath use (p = 0.023, OR 2.15[1.1-4.15]) increased the odds of complications. Conclusion Cardiac surgeons and cardiologists achieved a high rate of TLE procedural success and with a similar safety profile, replicating standards seen across Europe.

Long-term survival following transvenous lead extraction: importance of indication and comorbidities

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background/Introduction: The significant rise in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has been paralleled by an increase in the number of procedures required for the removal of such devices and their associated leads. High procedural success rates with low rates of major in hospital complications is well recognised. Longer term mortality following transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is less well characterised. Long term outcomes are important as they should inform the decision making and consent process, especially in non-infected cases where there may not be a class I indication for lead removal. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors influencing survival in patients undergoing TLE depending on extraction indication. Methods Clinical data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in the reference centre between the years 2000 to 2019 were prospectively collected. Only patients surviving to discharge were included. The total cohort was divided into groups depending on whether there was an infective or non-infective indication for TLE. We evaluated the association of demographic, clinical, device related and procedure-related factors on mortality. Results A total of 1151 patients were included in the analysis. 632 (54.9%) and 519 patients (45.1%) were for infective and non-infective indications respectively. Analysis of long-term outcomes on the total cohort (mean 66-month follow-up) revealed a mortality of 34.1% (392 deaths). A higher proportion of patients died in the infection vs the non-infection group (38.6% vs 28.5%, p &amp;lt; 0.001). Local infection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.12-1.75]) was associated with similar long-term mortality risk as systemic infection (HR = 1.3, CI[0.99-1.72]). Multivariate analysis demonstrated increased risk of mortality with higher age (HR = 1.05, CI[1.04-1.07]), eGFR &amp;lt; 60ml/min/1.73m2 (HR = 1.55, CI[11.22-1.97]), higher cumulative co-morbidity burden (HR = 1.15, CI [1.06-1.23], and reduced risk per percentage increase in LVEF (HR = 0.98, CI[0.96-1.00]). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated statistically worse prognosis in patients with a higher number of leads extracted and increasing co-morbidities. Conclusion Long-term mortality for patients undergoing TLE remains high. Consensus guidelines recommend evaluating risk for major complications when determining whether to proceed with TLE. This study suggests assessing longer-term outcomes when considering TLE, particularly for non-infective indications. Abstract Figure.

Assessing survival and re-hospitalisation following transvenous lead extraction in cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices depending on reimplantation timing: a propensity score matched analysis

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Among patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE), differences in complication rate and 1-year mortality has been explored in patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices. Longer term outcomes and the influence of timing of reimplantation of device, with respect to rehospitalisation and longer-term mortality is poorly understood. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether early reimplantation following TLE in patients with CRT devices influenced survival and rehospitalisation. Methods Clinical data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in the reference centre between the years 2000 to 2019 were prospectively collected. Patients surviving to discharge who were re-implanted with the same device were included. The cohort was split depending on whether or not they had a CRT device at time of explant. The association between TLE in CRT patients and all-cause mortality and re-hospitalisation was assessed by Kaplan Meier estimates in a 1:1 propensity-score matched cohort, with a calliper of 0.10. Early reimplantation was defined as reimplantation within 7 days of TLE, and late reimplantation as reimplantation after greater than 7 days of TLE. Results Of 1005 patients included in the analysis, 285 (25%) had a CRT device. After matching, 192 CRT patients were compared with 192 non-CRT patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 39 baseline characteristics, including age, gender, co-morbidities, TLE indication, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline creatinine and technical extraction data. Mean follow up was 53.5 ± 38.3 months, mean age at explant was 67.7 ± 12.1 years, 83.3% were male and 54.4% had an infective indication for TLE. In the matched cohort, there was no significant difference between the CRT and non-CRT group with respect to long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.74-1.39], p = 0.093) or rehospitalisation (HR = 1.2 [0.87-1.66], p = 0.265). A similar proportion of patients were reimplanted within 7 days in the CRT and non-CRT groups (59.4% vs 61.5%, p = 0.754). In the matched non-CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with similar mortality to early reimplantation (HR = 1.33 [0.86-2.05], p = 0.208) and rehospitalisation (HR = 0.88 [0.53-1.45], p = 0.603). In the matched CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with higher mortality (HR = 1.64 [1.04-2.57], p = 0.032) and rehospitalisation (HR = 1.57 [1.00-2.46], p = 0.049] (see figure). Conclusion In this closely matched population, TLE in CRT patients resulted in similar long-term outcomes compared with non-CRT patients. Early reimplantation post CRT explant was associated with reduced long-term mortality and rehospitalisation. This suggests a longer duration without biventricular pacing post TLE may induce negative reverse-remodelling and should be avoided in a CRT population. Abstract Figure. Kaplan-Meier survival curves

Safe and effective transvenous lead extraction for elderly patients utilizing non-laser and laser tools: a single-center experience in Japan.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for cardiac implantable electric device (CIED) infection is becoming increasingly common, but is believed to be particularly risky in elderly patients. This study aimed to clarify the safety and effectiveness of TLE in the elderly, evaluating the use of both non-laser and laser extraction tools. We retrospectively analyzed the characteristics, device type, indications, procedures, and clinical results in younger (YG; age: 15-79years; n = 48) and elderly groups (EG; age: ≥ 80years; n = 27) of patients who underwent percutaneous TLE between April 2014 and December 2019 at our hospital. The average age was 68 and 88years in the YG and EG, respectively. Indications for TLE were infection in 33 (68.8%) patients and other in 15 (30.6%) patients in the YG, and infection in all 27 (100%) EG patients. Bloodstream infection was detected in 9 and 4 patients in the YG and EG, respectively, with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis being the most common causative pathogen. All TLE procedures were performed under general anesthesia in an operating room with cardiovascular surgeon backup. An excimer laser sheath (76 leads), a laser followed by a mechanical sheath (45 leads), Evolution RL® (17 leads), a mechanical sheath (9 leads), and manual traction (one lead) were employed to extract a total of 148 leads (98 and 50 in the YG and EG, respectively). A mechanical sheath or Evolution RL® was more frequently used in the YG. The respective average implantation durations in the YG and EG were 5.3 and 5.0years, respectively, which were comparable (p = 0.46). Procedural success rates were identical between the YG and EG (99% vs. 100%, respectively). There was only one procedure-related complication in the entire cohort (cardiac tamponade in a YG patient). Taken together, the success rates of TLE were high in the EG, with no complications, with extraction being the indication for infection in all EG patients. Percutaneous TLE was safe and effective in elderly patients using both non-laser and laser techniques.

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

PurposeDuring 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.MethodsThis is a single-center observational study including all TLE procedures between 2012 till 2019.ResultsA 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.ConclusionAn effective and safe TLE procedure can be achieved by using the synergy between a superior and femoral approach.

Modern approaches to transvenous lead extraction

Aim. To show the effectiveness and safety of modern transvenous lead extraction (TLE) techniques used in cardiac surgery. Material and methods. The study included 102 patients (men — 66, women — 36; mean age 58,3±1,7 years). Fifteen (14,7%) patients had infectious indications for TLE, 87 (85,3%) patients — non-infectious. Among the infectious indications (14,7%) were: isolated pocket infection of implantable electronic device (IED) — 13 (12,9%); pocket infection with bacteremia — 1 (0,9%); infectious endocarditis without pocket infection — 1 (0,9%). Of the non-infectious indications, 87 patients (85,3%) had: venous occlusion — 4 (3,9%); chronic pain at IED area — 10 (9,8%); device upgrade — 16 (15,7%); non-functioning (dysfunction, fracture) leads — 57 (55,9%). Results . Using simple traction, 75 (50,4%) leads were removed. TLE technique was used in 56 (37,5%) extractions. Of these, telescoping/rotational mechanical dilators were used in 23 (15,4%) and 33 (22,1%) lead extractions, respectively. In 15 (14,7%) patients with infectious indications, 33 (22,1% of total) leads were removed. In 87 (85,3%) patients with noninfectious indications, 98 (65,8% of total) leads were removed. It was not possible to completely remove 18 (12% of total) leads. Conclusion . Currently, modern TLE techniques have shown their high efficiency and safety. It is confirmed by large international studies such as ELECTRa, LExiCon, PLEXES, where success rate reaches 97,7% and mortality does not exceed 0,5%. The successful application of modern techniques enlarged the list of indications and has been widely used in routine cardiac surgery.

P557Does the reduced left ventricle ejection fraction affect the results of transvenous lead extraction?

Abstract Background Reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) is a common risk factor of complications in patients undergoing different procedures. Aim of study The aim of the study was to assess efficiency and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures in patients with reduced LVEF (&amp;lt; 40%) compared to patients with mid-range reduced and preserved LVEF (≥40%). Study group Data from 3434 of TLE procedures (patient"s age during TLE-65,5 ± 15,5 years, female; 1168 (34,01%), performed in two high volume European Centers (PISA – Italy, Lublin-Zamość – Poland) were analysed. Results In group with reduced LVEF (A) compared to the group of patients with LVEF ≥ 40% (B) the smaller number of female was found (p &amp;lt; 0,001). The number of devices with ICD leads was higher in group A (p &amp;lt; 0,001). Dwelling time for oldest lead and the oldest extracted lead were longer in group B (p &amp;lt; 0.001). There were no differences in indications for TLE between presented groups. The procedure duration time was similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in complete procedural success, clinical success, major and minor complications and procedure related death occurrence. Complete results are presented in Table.1 Conclusion The effectiveness and safety of TLE in patients with reduced left ventricle ejection fraction does not differ from the results of the TLE procedures in patients with mid-range reduced and preserved LVEF. Abstract Table

1255Comprehensive analysis of pacemaker patients with and without abandoned leads undergoing transvenous lead extraction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

Abstract OnBehalf GALLERY investigators Background The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated complications such as infection, lead dysfunction or thrombotic events is continuously rising and thus making transvenous lead extraction (TLE) an ever more needed procedure in clinical practice today. Patients with abandoned leads represent a special cohort with a potentially higher susceptibility to CIED-related infections and vascular complications. Moreover, according to literature abandoned leads seem to be associated with more procedural complications and mortality during TLE. Aim The aim of this study was to provide an insight on safety, procedural outcome and risk prediction on pacemaker patients with abandoned leads undergoing TLE from the largest national laser-sheath registry to date. Methods + Results: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the GALLERY database, which collected 2533 patients undergoing TLE in Germany between 2013 and 2017. Out of 903 pacemaker patients, who underwent TLE, 226 patients (25.0%) with abandoned leads were identified. Those patients had a higher number of leads per patient (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3; ns) and longer lead dwell-times (168.0 ± 89.7 vs. 123.0 ± 69.2 months; p &amp;lt; 0.0001) compared to pacemaker patients without abandoned leads. There were no differences in age (71.5 vs. 72.3 years; ns), body mass index (26.5 ± 4.5 vs. 26.78 ± 4.8 kg/m2; ns) or gender distribution (69.0 vs. 66.5% male; ns). Leading indication for TLE was device infection with no difference between groups (79.7 vs 77.8 %; ns). There were no differences in terms of pacemaker dependency, length of hospitalization or comorbidities. Patients with abandoned leads had longer procedure times (112.0 ± 69.0 vs. 86.4 ± 53.0 minutes; p &amp;lt; 0.0001) and a higher incidence of procedural complications (6.6 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.03), but there were no differences in neither procedural and clinical success rates (96.5 vs. 97.3%; ns), nor all-cause mortality (1.33 vs. 2.66%; ns). Multivariate logistic regression revealed abandoned leads (OR 2.1, CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.04) and female gender (OR 2.4, CI 1.2-4.9, p = 0.02) as independent predictors for procedural complications. Systemic infection (OR 5.4, CI 2.0-14.8, p = 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR 4.0, CI 1.5-10.7, p = 0.007) were strong predictors for all-cause mortality in patients with indwelling pacemaker. Patient age &amp;gt; 75 years (OR 3.9, CI 2.7-5.6, p &amp;lt; 0.0001) and a lead dwell-time &amp;gt; 10 years (OR 1.6, CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.01) were identified as risk factors for an infectious cause for TLE. Conclusion Abandoned leads are frequently encountered in pacemaker patients undergoing TLE and pose an important risk factor for procedural complications. Systemic CIED-related infections are the strongest driver of mortality in this patient cohort and urgently call for further improvements in early diagnosis and prevention.

Use of the new rotating dilator sheath TightRail™ for lead extraction: A bicentric experience.

AimThe aim of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of the new bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath TightRail™ (Spectranetics) for lead extraction.Methods and resultsThis is a bicentric prospective study that included patients who underwent a transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in two Italian centers (San Raffaele Hospital and Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital). From November 2016 to December 2018, 26 patients underwent a TLE procedure in which the TightRail™ was used. The new TightRail Sub‐C was used in 20 (76%) patients to overcome the fibrosis between the vessel and the first rib. Median age was 69 (IQR 60.7‐79.5) years. The indication for TLE were infection (57.7%) or lead dysfunction (42.3%). A total of 57 leads (range 1‐4), 40 of which using the TightRail (range 1‐4), were extracted. Overall mean implant duration was 98.2.0 ± 66.5 months. Mean age of the lead extracted with the TightRail sheath was 99.1 ± 70.2 months and was higher compared to that of the leads extracted manually (84.4 ± 60.3 months, P = .001). The overall clinical success was 100% and complete procedural success without the use of a snare was achieved in 98.3%. There were no cases of death or major complications and only two minor complications occurred. All patients were event‐free at 6‐month follow‐up.ConclusionThis initial experience using the TightRail™ suggests a high safety and efficacy profile for extractions in a wide range of lead age.

Indications for transvenous lead extraction and its procedural and early outcomes in elderly patients: a single-center experience.

Due to the prolonged survival of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, leads often need to be removed in elderly individuals. We aimed to analyze indications for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), procedure effectiveness and safety, as well as 30‑day follow‑up in younger patients (≤80 years) and octogenarians (>80 years). This prospective study included 667 patients who underwent TLE: 90 octogenarians (13.5%) at a mean age of 83.8 (range, 80.4-93) years and 577 younger patients (86.5%) at a mean age of 64.2 (range, 18.9-79.9) years. Octogenarians had a greater number of comorbidities, fewer implantable cardioverter‑defibrillators implanted, and more frequently had infection as an indication for TLE, as compared with younger patients (33.3% vs 17.1%; P <0.001). In octogenarians, 138 leads were extracted, as compared with 894 leads in younger patients. Octogenarians and younger patients had similar rates of complete lead removal (98.6% and 97.1%, respectively; P = 0.48), total procedural success (97.8% and 96%, respectively; P = 0.7), major complications (0% and 1.6%, respectively; P = 0.45), and minor complications (2.2% and 1.6%, respectively; P = 0.45). There was 1 death associated with TLE in younger patients. Non-procedure‑related deaths within 30 days after TLE were more frequent in octogenarians than in younger patients (5.6% vs 1.9%; P = 0.04). We showed that TLE in patients older than 80 years seems to be as effective as in younger patients; however, it is associated with significantly higher non-procedure‑related 30‑day mortality.