Cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead removal in a resource-constrained setting: A single-center experience from India

BACKGROUND: Data from large-volume centers in developed countries, using dedicated tools, show a high success rate with a good safety record for the percutaneous lead removal procedure. However, there are constraints to replicate the results in a resource-poor setting and there is limited data from India. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed lead removal procedures performed in our institution from 2008 to 2019. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients underwent percutaneous removal of 138 leads. Of these, 44 procedures and 80 leads qualified as extraction with a median dwell time of 52.1 (IQR 28.2–117.2) months. Overall, 33/44 (75.0%) procedures were successful and 65/80 (81.2%) leads were successfully extracted. Manual traction was successful in the extraction of 44/57 (77.2%) leads. All leads implanted less than 2.7 years could be removed with manual traction alone. Specialized tools were used in 23 leads and 21 (91.3%) of those could be successfully extracted. Inability to use dedicated tools was an independent predictor of procedural failure (adjusted OR 14.0; 95% CI 1.8–110.2; p-value 0.012). Right-sided implant (adjusted OR 12.6; 95% CI 1.3–119.5; p-value 0.027) was also independently associated with failure. There was 1 death (1.3%) and minor complications occurred in 6 (8.0%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a resource-limited setting, percutaneous lead extraction of predominantly pacemaker leads by manual traction methods achieved success in extracting about three-fourths of the leads. Inability to use specialized tools was the main factor limiting success. The complication rate was low.