Transvenous Lead Extraction In Patients Research Articles

Procedural outcome of transvenous lead extraction in patients with right-sided leads - a GALLERY subgroup analysis

Abstract Background Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices has become a well-established therapy for patients with lead complications. However, there is limited information on specific outcomes for patients with right-sided leads compared to patients with left-sided leads undergoing TLE. Aim The aim of this study was to analyze patient characteristics, procedural outcomes as well as adverse events and mortality of patients with right-sided leads undergoing TLE with the excimer laser sheath as a first line therapy. Methods We performed a subgroup analysis of all reported patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) with unilateral right-sided leads (Group 1) or unilateral left-sided leads (Group 2). Results 2438 patients with unilateral leads were analyzed. 750 patients were in Group 1 and 1688 patients were in Group 2. Patients in Group 1 were older (71.1 ± 13.9 vs. 66.5 ± 13.6; p < 0.001), more patients were female (31.7% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.001), had a lower body-mass-index (26.8 ± 4.5 vs. 27.2 ± 4.7; p=0.03) and more patients were pacemaker dependent (44.9% vs. 25.4%, p< 0.001). The primary indication for TLE was local infection (46.0% vs. 30.6%, p< 0.001) in Group 1 and lead dysfunction (20.0% vs. 36.1%, p< 0.0001) in Group 2. The frequency of TLE for systemic infection was indifferent between groups (28.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.532). The most common device to be extracted were pacemakers (80.1% vs. 22.7%, p< 0.001) in Group 1 and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) (9.7 vs. 45.3%, p< 0.001) and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT) (9.6 vs. 31.5%); p< 0.001) in Group 2. The mean number of total leads was not different between groups (2.4 ± 0.9 for Group 1 vs. 2.3 ± 1.0 for Group 2; p=0.98), however median lead dwell time (120 vs. 85 months, p< 0.001), patients with abandoned leads (32.0% vs. 25.9%; p=0.0022) and the use of additional extraction tools (8.4% vs. 5.7%, p=0.016) were significantly higher in Group 1. Patients with right-sided leads had a longer median hospital stay (10 vs. 9 [5; 15] p=0.001). Complete procedural success was higher in patients Group 2 (89.1 vs. 93.1%, p=0.001) but there was no difference in clinical success rates (97.7% vs. 98.0%, p=0.74). There was no difference in overall complication rates (4.3% vs. 4.2%, p=0.945). Neither procedure related mortality (0.3% vs. 0.7%, p=0.2940) nor all-cause mortality (3.5% vs. 3.4%, p=0.9101) differed between groups. Conclusion TLE procedures in patients with right-sided leads showed a lower procedural success rate and a higher need of additional tools. This patient group was older, more often pacemaker dependent and had a higher number of abandoned leads. Despite different patient and lead characteristics, there were no differences in clinical success-rates, procedure related complications or all-cause mortality between groups.

Early vs. late lead extraction in CIED infections: evaluating the interplay of infection type, timing, and comorbidities

Abstract Background Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) may be associated with peri- and post-procedural complications like device-related infection, one of the most serious challenge of CIEDs therapy associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and financial healthcare burden. Despite a routine use of antibiotics, recent studies reported an increase in CIEDs infections, with or without systemic involvement, that often require surgical interventions like transvenous lead extraction. Purpose This study evaluates the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in patients with infected CIEDs, focusing on the impact of early versus delayed extraction timing on patient outcomes. Methods A retrospective analysis of 165 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction for CIED infections between 2019 and 2022 was conducted. Patients were categorized into systemic (n=64) or local (n=101) infection groups and further into early (within 7 days from admission, n=102) or delayed (after 7 days, n=63) extraction groups. Post-procedural outcomes, including septic shock, complications, and mortality rates were described. Results The majority of patients were male (75%) with a median age of 73 (IQR 64-80) years. In the early extraction group, the 1-year mortality rate was significantly lower at 6.4%, compared to 25% in the delayed group. Patients with systemic infections had higher 1-month and 1-year mortality rates compared to those with local infections. The success rates of complete device removal were similar across groups. However, the delayed extraction group exhibited higher rates of comorbidities like anemia, chronic kidney disease, and elevated C-reactive protein levels, which were prevalent in 70% of these patients, compared to 45% in the early extraction group. Conclusions Timely management of CIED infections is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Early extraction within 7 days from hospital admission is associated with significantly lower mortality, regardless of local or systemic infection. Patients undergoing delayed extraction often present with greater comorbidity, which may contribute to their higher mortality rates. This underscores the importance of considering patient comorbidities and prompt intervention in managing CIED infections.

Discussing the Prognosis and Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED): A Systematic Review.

An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural successin a majority of studies.

Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures.

The long-term significance of lead remnants (LR) following transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains disputable, especially in infectious patients. Retrospective analysis of 3741 TLEs focused on the relationship between LR and procedure complexity, complications and long-term survival. The study group consisted of 156 individuals with LR (4.17%), and the control group consisted of 3585 patients with completely removed lead(s). In a multivariable model, a younger patient age at CIED implantation, more CIED procedures and procedure complexity were independent risk factors for retention of non-removable LR. Although patients with LR showed better survival outcomes following TLE (log rank p = 0.041 for non-infectious group and p = 0.017 for infectious group), multivariable Cox regression analysis did not confirm the prognostic significance of LR either in non-infectious [HR = 0.777; p = 0.262], infectious [HR = 0.983; p = 0.934] or the entire group of patients [HR = 0.858; p = 0.321]. 1. Non-removable LRs are encountered in 4.17% of patients. 2. CIED infection has no influence on retention of LRs, but younger patient age, multiple CIED-related procedures and higher levels of procedure complexity are independent risk factors for the presence of LR. 3. Better survival outcomes following TLE in patients with LRs are not the effects of their presence but younger patient and better health status.

Clinical predictors of incomplete coronary sinus lead removal during transvenous lead extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Reports of coronary sinus (CS) lead removal include small studies with short implant durations. Procedural outcomes for mature CS leads removed with long duration implantation are unavailable. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety, efficacy, and clinical predictors of incomplete CS lead removal by transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in a large long implant duration cardiac resynchronization therapy patient cohort. Consecutive patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry who had TLE between 2013 and 2022 were included in the analysis. CS leads (N = 231; implant duration 6.1 ± 4.0 years) removed from 226 patients were included, using powered sheaths for 137 leads (59.3%). Complete CS lead extraction success was achieved in 95.2% of leads (n = 220) and in 95.6% of patients (n = 216). Major complications occurred in 5 patients (2.2%). Patients who had the CS lead extracted first had significantly higher incomplete removal rates than when the other leads were first removed. Multivariable analysis showed that older CS lead age (odds ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.82; P = .03) and removal of the first CS lead (odds ratio 7.48; 95% confidence interval 1.02-54.95; P = .045) were independent predictors of incomplete CS lead removal. The complete and safe lead removal rate of long implant duration CS leads by TLE was 95%. However, CS lead age and the order in which leads were extracted were the independent predictors of incomplete CS lead removal. Therefore, before the CS lead is extracted, physicians should first extract the leads from the other chambers and use powered sheaths.

Concomitant leadless pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for active infection: Mid-term follow-up

The rate of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) due to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection continues to rise. CIED infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary pacing in patients with active CIED infections after TLE can be challenging. Leadless pacing has emerged as an alternative approach in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of a strategy using concomitant leadless pacemaker implantation and TLE in patients with active infections and ongoing pacing requirements. This study involved all leadless pacemaker implantation procedures performed during TLE between June 2018 and September 2022 in the setting of active infection. Demographic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. The study included 86 patients with indications for ongoing pacing, 60 (70%) men with mean age 77.4 ± 10.5 years, who underwent TLE and concomitant leadless pacemaker implantation in the setting of active infection. There were no procedure-related complications. Sixty-five patients (76%) had evidence of bacteremia, 80% of whom were discharged to complete their antimicrobial treatment. During a median follow-up of 163 days (interquartile range 57-403 days), there were no recurrent infections. Of the 25 deaths (29%) during the study period, 22 (88%) were unrelated to the initial infection. Nine deceased patients (36%) had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Candida infections, 3 of whom had persistent infection despite TLE. Leadless pacing is a safe and efficacious approach for the management of patients with pacing requirements that undergo CIED extraction in the setting of active infection.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with systemic cardiac device–related infection—Procedural outcome and risk prediction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has evolved as one of the most crucial treatment options for patients with cardiac device-related systemic infection (CDRSI). The aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk factors of patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE. A subgroup analysis of patients with CDRSI of the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database was performed. Predictors for complications, procedural failure, and all-cause mortality were evaluated. A total of 722 patients (28.6%) in the GALLERY had "systemic infection" as extraction indication. Patients with CDRSI were older (70.1 ± 12.2 years vs 67.3 ± 14.3 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities than patients with local infections or noninfectious extraction indications. There were no differences in complete procedural success (90.6% vs 91.7%; P = .328) or major complications (2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .416) but increased procedure-related (1.4% vs 0.3%; P = .003) and all-cause in-hospital mortality (11.1% vs 0.6%; P < .001) for patients with CDRSI. Multivariate analyses revealed lead age ≥10 years as a predictor for procedural complications (odds ratio [OR] 3.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-6.60; P = .001). Lead age ≥10 years (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.46; P = .04) was also a predictor for procedural failure. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.00-2.99; P = .049), age ≥75 years (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.27-3.48; P = .004), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.17-3.14; P = .01), and overall procedural complications (OR 5.15; 95% CI 2.44-10.84; P < .001) as predictors for all-cause mortality. Patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE demonstrate an increased rate of all-cause in-hospital, as well as procedure-related mortality, despite having comparable procedural success rates. Given these data, it seems paramount to develop preventive strategies to detect and treat CDRSI in its earliest stages.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006–2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Device: The Impact of Systemic and Local Infection on Clinical Outcomes-An ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Substudy.

Simple SummaryAccording to our analysis of the multicenter EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry, about one-third of the candidates to complete removal of an implantable pacemaker/defibrillator because of device infection, through standard transvenous lead extraction, presents a systemic infection. Systemic infection is associated with a higher incidence of major in-hospital complications overall and a strong trend for procedure-related complications. Moreover, systemic infection is associated with increased procedure-related and non-procedure-related in-hospital mortality. Patients with cardiac implantable devices (CIED)-related infection with systemic vs. local involvement present different characteristics suggesting that in a relevant subgroup of patients the infection can be systemic from the beginning, without progression from CIED pocket.Background: Infections of cardiac implantable devices (CIEDI) have poor outcomes despite improvement in lead extraction (TLE) procedures. Methods: To explore the influence of CIEDI on the outcomes of TLE and the differences between patients with systemic (Sy) vs. local (Lo) CIEDI, we performed a sub-analysis of the EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry. Results: Among 3555 patients enrolled by 73 centers in 19 Countries, the indication for TLE was CIEDI in 1850: 1170 with Lo-CIEDI and 680 with Sy-CIEDI. Patients with CIEDI had a worse in-hospital prognosis in terms of major complications (3.57% vs. 1.71%; p = 0.0007) and mortality (2.27% vs. 0.49%; p < 0.0001). Sy-CIEDI was an independent predictor of in-hospital death (H.R. 2.14; 95%CI 1.06–4.33. p = 0.0345). Patients with Sy-CIEDI more frequently had an initial CIED implant and a higher prevalence of comorbidities, while subjects with Lo-CIEDI had a higher prevalence of previous CIED procedures. Time from signs of CIEDI and TLE was longer for Lo-CIEDI despite a shorter pre-TLE antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: Patients with CIEDI have a worse in-hospital prognosis after TLE, especially for patients with Sy-CIEDI. These results raise the suspicion that in a relevant group of patients CIEDI can be systemic from the beginning without progression from Lo-CIEDI. Future research is needed to characterize this subgroup of patients.

500 The impact on healthcare of reimplantation and long-term mortality after transvenous lead extraction in patients with device related infection

Abstract Aims Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become a pivotal part of a comprehensive lead management strategy, dealing with a continuously increasing demand. Nonetheless, literature about long-term outcomes and the impact of a new device implantation on survival is still lacking. Given these knowledge gaps, the aim of our study was to analyse reimplantation and both early and long-term mortality in patients undergoing TLE, even in a public health perspective, specifically clarifying concerns about reimplantation. Methods This prospective, single-centre, observational, real-world registry consecutively enrolled patients (pts) with cardiac implantable electronic device who underwent TLE at our Hospital, from January 2005 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was to analyse major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in both re-implanted (R Group) and non reimplanted (NR Group); secondary end-point was long-term (after discharge) mortality of the whole cohort, in order to investigate long-term mortality predictors. Results We enrolled high-risk cohort of 451 pts (mean population age 70 ± 12, with lead dwelling time 81.7 ± 201.2 months) at baseline findings: 92% of pts had an evidence of device infection, a generally impaired heart function with mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 44 ± 13% and high rates of comorbidities (15% of pts with hypertension+ diabetes mellitus + renal failure). Three-hundred thirteen (72%) pts were reimplanted, using endocardiac leads in 86% and epicardial leads in 14%. Total MACEs rate was higher in R Group versus NR Group (64% versus 28%, P ≤ 0.001, CI 95%, respectively). In particular, rehospitalizations occurred more frequently in reimplanted population (R group 43% versus NR group 13%, P = 0.001, CI 95%). Long-term mortality rate was 34% (150 pts) at a mean follow up of 5.2 years. The leading contributor to long-term mortality was represented by multiple non-communicable chronic diseases (62%), being sepsis responsible for only 4% of long-term mortality, with a clear evidence of reduced infective burden after TLE and complete antibiotic therapy. At multivariate analysis, we found three independent predictors of long-term mortality: advanced age (&amp;gt; 77 years, OR 1.04, CI 1.02–1.06, P &amp;lt; 0.001), renal failure (eGFR&amp;lt;30 mL/min, OR 1.66, CI 1.15–2.39, P = 0.007) and left ventricular dysfunction before TLE (LVEF&amp;lt;45%, OR 1.58, CI 1.08–2.13, P = 0.017). Conclusions In patients undergoing TLE for infective indications, our study identified the reimplantation group as high risk group for adverse events before discharge. On the other hand, advanced age, renal failure and systolic dysfunction, as independent predictors of long-term mortality, could be evaluated as a predictive score to assess the mortality risk before the procedure of TLE.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Assessing long-term survival and hospitalization following transvenous lead extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BackgroundLonger-term outcomes of patients post transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are poorly understood in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.ObjectivesA propensity score (PS)–matched analysis evaluating outcomes post TLE in CRT and non-CRT populations was performed.MethodsData from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2000 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Patients surviving to discharge and reimplanted with the same device were included. The cohort was split depending on presence of CRT device. Associations with all-cause mortality and hospitalization were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. An exploratory endpoint was evaluated whether early (<7 days) or late (>7 days) reimplantation was associated with poorer outcomes.ResultsOf 1005 patients included, 285 (25%) had a CRT device. Median follow-up was 57.00 [27.00–93.00] months, age at explant was 67.7 ± 12.1 years, 83.3% were male, and 54.4% had an infective indication for TLE. PS was calculated using 43 baseline characteristics. After matching, 192 CRT patients were compared with 192 non-CRT patients. In the matched cohort, no significant difference with respect to mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.74–1.39], P = .093) or hospitalization risk (HR = 1.2, 95% CI [0.87–1.66], P = .265) was observed. In the matched CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with increased mortality (HR = 1.64, [1.04–2.57], P = .032) and hospitalization risk (HR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.00–2.46], P = .049].ConclusionOutcomes of CRT patients post TLE are similarly as poor as those of non-CRT patients in matched populations. Reimplantation within 7 days was associated with better outcomes in a CRT population but was not observed in a non-CRT population, suggesting prolonged periods without biventricular pacing should be avoided.

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.

Outcome of transvenous lead extraction in patients on minimally interrupted periprocedural direct oral anticoagulation therapy.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have increasingly been used for several indications for systemic anticoagulation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The optimal management of anticoagulation therapy in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of TLE during minimally interrupted DOAC therapy. This is a single-center retrospective study of all patients who underwent TLE of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead while on DOAC therapy. In patients deemed to be at high thromboembolic risk, the last DOAC dose was administered the morning of the day before the procedure (regardless of the type of DOAC) and was restarted as soon as possible after the procedure, without bridging with parenteral anticoagulation. During the study period, a total of 84 patients underwent TLE while on minimally interrupted DOAC therapy (54% female, mean age: 74 ± 12 years). TLE was attempted for 161 leads, with a median lead dwell time of 61 months (interquartile range, 38-101). Complete procedural success was achieved for 156 leads (96.9%) and partial success for additional two leads (1.2%). One patient developed RV perforation and required pericardiocentesis and blood transfusion, but no surgical repair. Two patients developed pocket hematomas requiring invasive evacuation. No systemic or venous thromboembolic events were observed. There was no in-hospital mortality. In selected CIED patients at high risk for thromboembolism, TLE during minimally interrupted DOAC therapy may be considered when performed at experienced centers.

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

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with persistent left superior vena cava.

Predictors of difficulty and complications of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) have been investigated in several studies; however, little is known about the venous anatomical characteristics that can have an impact on procedural outcomes. Among them, the persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a common anomaly often discovered incidentally during cardiac device implantation and could raise concerns if TLE is indicated. We report technical considerations and outcomes of TLE for two patients with leads implanted via PLSVC. Two cardiac implantable electronic device recipients with isolated PLSVC required TLE due to infective endocarditis in one case and lead failure in the other. In the first case, TLE procedure was performed in a hybrid operating room with minimally invasive video-assisted thoracoscopic monitoring due to the high procedural risk. Two active fixation 20-year-old pacing leads were removed with a relatively short fluoroscopy time. In the second case, we successfully extracted a single-coil active fixation lead without the need of a locking stylet or advanced extraction tools. There were no procedural complications or adverse events at 1-year follow-up. TLE procedures for two patients with isolated PLSVC were successfully completed with less difficulty and tools than expected based on the characteristics of the targeted leads. If indicated, TLE in the presence of a PLSVC should be considered in experienced centers.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous mechanical lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads

Optimal management of redundant or malfunctioning leads is controversial. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with abandoned leads. Consecutive TLE procedures performed in our centre from January 2009 to December 2017 were considered. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of mechanical TLE in patients with abandoned (Group 1) compared to non-abandoned (Group 2) leads. We analysed 1210 consecutive patients that required transvenous removal of 2343 leads. Group 1 accounted for 250 patients (21%) with a total of 617 abandoned leads (26%). Group 2 comprised 960 patients (79%) with 1726 leads (74%). The total number of leads (3.0 vs. 2.0), dwelling time of the oldest lead (108.00 months vs. 60.00 months) and infectious indications for TLE were higher in Group 1. Clinical success was achieved in 1168 patients (96.5%) with a lower rate in Group 1 (90.4% vs. 98.1%; P < 0.001). Major complications occurred in only 9 patients (0.7%), without significant differences among the two groups. The presence of one or more abandoned leads [odds ratio (OR) 3.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-11.19; P = 0.037] and dwelling time of the oldest lead (OR 1.01 for a month; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of clinical failure. Transvenous mechanical lead extraction is a safe procedure also in high-risk settings, as patients with abandoned leads. Success rate resulted a bit lower, especially in the presence of abandoned leads with long implantation time.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with prior extraction procedures: Procedural profiles and outcomes

Subclinical venous injuries are common during transvenous lead extraction (TLE), but their implications for future TLE are unclear. Little is known about whether a prior TLE adds risk or complexity to subsequent extraction procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess procedural profiles and outcomes of TLE based on whether patients had prior extraction procedures. All 3258 consecutive patients undergoing TLE at the Cleveland Clinic (1996-2012) were included. Procedural profiles and outcomes were determined. Of 3258 TLEs, 198 had prior TLE. Median number of leads in place was 2 in both groups, but patients with prior TLE were more likely to have defibrillator leads (47% vs 41%; P = .08) and more likely to be pacemaker-dependent (32% vs 25%; P = .02). The age of oldest lead (median 2134 vs 1902 days; P = .4) and combined age of leads (median 2948 vs 2676 days; P = .6) were comparable. Procedures were longer in those with prior TLE (166 ± 79 minutes vs 149 ± 74 minutes; P = .004) with comparable fluoroscopy times (median 13 vs 11 minutes; P = .07), and successful extraction was more likely to require specialized tools (88% vs 81%; P = .006) with higher likelihood of rescue femoral workstation (12% vs 4%; P <.0001). Clinical success rates were comparable in those with prior TLE (99.5% vs 98.9%; P = .8) with similar major (3.0% vs 1.9%; P=.3) and minor (3.0% vs 3.7%; P = .8) complication rates. Extraction procedures were more challenging in patients with prior TLE compared to those without prior TLE but with excellent success and low complication rates.

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

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.