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.

P1179Transvenous extraction of partially controlled leads

Background Lead control has an essential role in successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE), however, there is limited data about leads without adequate control Objective The aim of the study was to assess the success rate, complexity, and safety of partially controlled lead extraction. Methods A single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients underwent TLE procedures was performed. Results From May 2012 to Aug 2019, 137 consecutive patients (76% male, mean age: 65 ± 15 years) underwent TLE procedures (273 leads, 93% infective indication, 37% with high voltage leads). Locking stylet was used in 83% (n = 224) of the leads. Advancement of the locking stylet all the way to the tip was not possible in 30.4% (n = 68) of the leads, resulting in partial control (LC- group). The mean age of the lead was significantly higher (11.06 +/- vs 7.76 +/- 6.3, p = 0.001) and the success rate was lower (76.1 % vs 93.2%, p = 0.001) in LC-. The need for femoral approach was more frequently in LC- leads (36.9% vs 16.2%, P= 0.001). Inadequate lead control was an independent predictor of lead extraction failure (OR: 5.27, 95% CI: 1.71-5.27, p= 0.004) and femoral approach (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.054-4.08, p= 0.035). Three out of five major complications occurred in LC- group. Conclusions Partial lead control results in lower success rate and more complex TLE procedures.

P1507Experience in chronical lead extraction with ablation catheter and snare via femoral route

Background Transvenous lead extraction may become a complicated process and special sheath systems used for extraction may not be available in the laboratory. Transvenous lead extraction from femoral vein by using ablation catheter and snare may be an alternative and cost-effective method to transvenous lead extraction with specialized lead extraction sheaths. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the factors that may be associated with the use of transfemoral technique during extraction of chronically implanted leads. Methods We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent transvenous extraction of pacemaker, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) leads in our institution in between 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2019. The indications for lead extraction were based on the European Heart Rhythm Association recommendations. Manual traction was applied to all leads at the beginning of each case. If manual traction was not successful, a subclavian approach by using locking stylet (Liberator Universal Locking Stylet, Cook Medical) or femoral approach was used. Femoral approach was performed using the flexible 13F long sheath and a second sheath for ablation catheter. Ablation catheter was wrapped around the lead and the tip of the ablation catheter was caught with gooseneck snare. Downward traction was applied on the body of the lead by using ablation catheter and gooseneck snare complex to release either end of the lead. Results A total of 160 leads in 94 patients were extracted during the time interval between 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2019. The indications for extraction were cardiac device related pocket erosion and infection in 71 (75.6%) and lead failure in the 23 (24.4%) cases. Extracted system was ICD in 48 (51.1%), CRT in 9 (9.6%) and pacemaker in 37 (39.3%) cases. The median time from the preceding procedure was 62.5 (IQR:32.3- 95.3) months. Lead extraction was performed by manual traction in 35 (37.2%) patients, by locking stylet method in 7 (7.4%) and by femoral approach in 52 (55.3%) patients. Clinical success was achieved in 93 (98.9%) cases and all of the patients discharged uneventfully without a major complication as death, cardiac avulsion or tear requiring pericardiocentesis or emergent surgery. Procedural success with femoral approach was achieved in 51/52 (98%) patients (99 leads). Ordinal regression revealed the time from the preceding procedure as the only parameter that was significantly associated with the usage of femoral approach (OR:1.065 ( 95% CI 1.039-1.100) p < 0.001). Conclusion Based on our experience, transfemoral approach by using ablation catheter and gooseneck snare seems to be an effective and safe method for chronically implanted lead extraction. It may be particularly be useful when manual traction is unsuccessful and special toolkids are not available for extraction.

Comparison of outcomes in infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices between complete, partial, and failed lead removal: an ESC-EHRA-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTrolled) registry

Aims The present study sought to determine predictors for success and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) extraction indicated for systemic or local CIED related infection in particular where complete lead removal could not be achieved. Methods and results ESC-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry) is a European prospective lead extraction registry. Out of the total cohort, 1865/3510 (52.5%) patients underwent removal due to CIED related infection. Predictors and outcomes of failure were analysed. Complete removal was achieved in 1743 (93.5%) patients, partial (<4 cm of lead left) in 88 (4.7%), and failed (>4 cm of lead left) in 32 (1.8%) patients. Removal success was unrelated to type of CIED infection (pocket or systemic). Predictors for failure were older leads and older patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.14 (1.08–1.19), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.68 (1.22–5.91), P = 0.0146, respectively]. In analysis by lead, predictors for failure were: pacemaker vs. defibrillator removal and failure to engage the locking stylet all the way to the tip [OR 0.20 (0.04–0.95), P = 0.03 and OR 0.32 (0.13–0.74), P = 0.008, respectively]. Significantly higher complication rates were noted in the failure group (40.6% vs. 15.9 for partial and 8.7% for success groups, P < 0.0001). Failure to remove a lead was a strong predictor for in hospital mortality [hazard ratio of 2.05 (1.01–4.16), P = 0.046]. Conclusion A total of 6.5% of infected CIED patients failed attempted extraction. Only were >4 cm of lead remained resulted in higher procedural complications and mortality rates.

Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Indications, Complications and Outcome: An Egyptian Two Years' Experience

BACKGROUND: The growing needs to extract cardiovascular implantable electronic devices warrants the need to improve the outcome and prevent complications. AIM: This study aims to analyse the findings and identify factors associated with complications of Percutaneous Transvenous Lead Extraction in the Critical Care Department, Cairo University. METHODS: We studied 52 candidates for Percutaneous Transvenous Lead extraction of a Permanent Pace Maker (PPM) regarding extraction indications, comorbidities, device type, complications and outcome. Extraction was first attempted by simple manual traction using regular non-locking stylet and if failed, locking stylet, and evolution dilator sheath were used. RESULTS: We extracted 110 leads with a mean lead age of 4.67 ± 3.6 years. The most common extraction indication was an infection (71.15%). Indications correlated significantly with comorbidities (p = 0.024), the most common being Diabetes Mellitus (40.38%). Simple traction was successful in 31 % of the leads, while 69% were extracted using locking stylet and evolution dilator sheath. The method of lead extraction correlated significantly with lead age (P ≤ 0.001). Complications were significantly higher with extraction by evolution dilator sheaths than by simple traction (P = 0.003) and in older patients (P = 0.008). Complications also correlated significantly with extractions indications (p = 0.012), type of PPM (P = 0.037), number of extracted leads (P = 0.041), and lead age (p= 0.011). CONCLUSION: Among the studied variables, extraction indications particularly infection, was the only preventable factor significantly associated with complications. While focusing on preventable factors, improving, implantation and extraction techniques should also be addressed.

System and lead extractions

This chapter covers system and lead extractions, including the principles and indications for decisions to explant or extract leads, methods of patient preparation, and techniques. The specific tools for lead extraction, such as a locking stylet, needle’s eye snare, and extraction sheaths are explained. The EDS and laser systems for described. The superior venous approach and femoral venous extraction are explained in a step-by-step method, including practical tips. Factors that increase the risk of complications are defined, along with the major and minor problems that can occur in a lead extraction.