Cargando…

Comparison between laser sheaths, femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths for lead extraction

INTRODUCTION: Efficiency and safety are important features in the selection of lead extraction tools. We report our experience with different endovascular techniques to extract individual pacing and defibrillator leads. METHODS: This is a single-centre study of consecutive lead extraction procedures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bracke, F. A., Rademakers, N., Verberkmoes, N., Van ’t Veer, M., van Gelder, B. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9043163/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34932200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-021-01652-w
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Efficiency and safety are important features in the selection of lead extraction tools. We report our experience with different endovascular techniques to extract individual pacing and defibrillator leads. METHODS: This is a single-centre study of consecutive lead extraction procedures from 1997 until 2019. A total of 1725 leads were extracted in 775 patients. Direct traction sufficed for 588 leads, and 22 leads were primarily removed by surgery. The endovascular techniques used in the remainder were a laser sheath (190 leads), the femoral approach (717 leads) and rotating mechanical sheaths (208 leads). RESULTS: The three approaches were comparably effective in completely removing the leads (p = 0.088). However, there were more major complications with the laser sheath than with the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths (8.4%, 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively). Therefore, the procedural result—extraction without major complications—was significantly better with both the femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths than with the laser sheath (p < 0.001). This result was confirmed after propensity score matching to compensate for differences between lead cohorts (p = 0.007). Cross-over to another endovascular tool was necessary in 7.9%, 7.1% and 8.2% of laser, femoral and rotating mechanical attempts, respectively. CONCLUSION: All three endovascular lead extraction techniques showed comparable efficacy. However, there were significantly more major complications using the laser sheath compared to the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths, leading us to abandon the laser technique. Importantly, no single endovascular technique sufficed to successfully extract all leads.