Cargando…

“Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance

“Ghosts” are fibrinous remnants that become visible during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: Data from transoesophageal echocardiography-guided TLE procedures performed in 1103 patients were analysed to identify predisposing risk factors for the development of so-called disappearing ghosts...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nowosielecka, Dorota, Jacheć, Wojciech, Polewczyk, Anna, Tułecki, Łukasz, Stefańczyk, Paweł, Kutarski, Andrzej
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9565986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36231841
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912542
_version_ 1784809026901508096
author Nowosielecka, Dorota
Jacheć, Wojciech
Polewczyk, Anna
Tułecki, Łukasz
Stefańczyk, Paweł
Kutarski, Andrzej
author_facet Nowosielecka, Dorota
Jacheć, Wojciech
Polewczyk, Anna
Tułecki, Łukasz
Stefańczyk, Paweł
Kutarski, Andrzej
author_sort Nowosielecka, Dorota
collection PubMed
description “Ghosts” are fibrinous remnants that become visible during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: Data from transoesophageal echocardiography-guided TLE procedures performed in 1103 patients were analysed to identify predisposing risk factors for the development of so-called disappearing ghosts—flying ghosts (FG), or attached to the cardiovascular wall—stable ghosts (SG), and to find out whether the presence of ghosts affected patient prognosis after TLE. Results: Ghosts were detected in 44.67% of patients (FG 15.5%, SG 29.2%). The occurrence of ghosts was associated with patient age at first system implantation [FG (OR = 0.984; p = 0.019), SG (OR = 0.989; p = 0.030)], scar tissue around the lead (s) [FG (OR = 7.106; p < 0.001, OR = 1.372; p = 0.011), SG (OR = 1.940; p < 0.001)], adherence of the lead to the cardiovascular wall [FG (OR = 0.517; p = 0.034)] and the number of leads [SG (OR = 1.450; p < 0.002). The presence of ghosts had no impact on long-term survival after TLE in the whole study group [FG HR = 0.927, 95% CI (0.742–1.159); p = 0.505; SG HR = 0.845, 95% CI (0.638–1.132); p = 0.265]. Conclusions: The degree of growth and maturation of scar tissue surrounding the lead was the strongest factor leading to the development of both types of ghosts. The presence of either form of ghost did not affect long-term survival even after TLE indicated for infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9565986
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95659862022-10-15 “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance Nowosielecka, Dorota Jacheć, Wojciech Polewczyk, Anna Tułecki, Łukasz Stefańczyk, Paweł Kutarski, Andrzej Int J Environ Res Public Health Article “Ghosts” are fibrinous remnants that become visible during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: Data from transoesophageal echocardiography-guided TLE procedures performed in 1103 patients were analysed to identify predisposing risk factors for the development of so-called disappearing ghosts—flying ghosts (FG), or attached to the cardiovascular wall—stable ghosts (SG), and to find out whether the presence of ghosts affected patient prognosis after TLE. Results: Ghosts were detected in 44.67% of patients (FG 15.5%, SG 29.2%). The occurrence of ghosts was associated with patient age at first system implantation [FG (OR = 0.984; p = 0.019), SG (OR = 0.989; p = 0.030)], scar tissue around the lead (s) [FG (OR = 7.106; p < 0.001, OR = 1.372; p = 0.011), SG (OR = 1.940; p < 0.001)], adherence of the lead to the cardiovascular wall [FG (OR = 0.517; p = 0.034)] and the number of leads [SG (OR = 1.450; p < 0.002). The presence of ghosts had no impact on long-term survival after TLE in the whole study group [FG HR = 0.927, 95% CI (0.742–1.159); p = 0.505; SG HR = 0.845, 95% CI (0.638–1.132); p = 0.265]. Conclusions: The degree of growth and maturation of scar tissue surrounding the lead was the strongest factor leading to the development of both types of ghosts. The presence of either form of ghost did not affect long-term survival even after TLE indicated for infection. MDPI 2022-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9565986/ /pubmed/36231841 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912542 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Nowosielecka, Dorota
Jacheć, Wojciech
Polewczyk, Anna
Tułecki, Łukasz
Stefańczyk, Paweł
Kutarski, Andrzej
“Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title_full “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title_fullStr “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title_full_unstemmed “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title_short “Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance
title_sort “ghost”, a well-known but not fully explained echocardiographic finding during transvenous lead extraction: clinical significance
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9565986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36231841
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912542
work_keys_str_mv AT nowosieleckadorota ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance
AT jachecwojciech ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance
AT polewczykanna ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance
AT tułeckiłukasz ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance
AT stefanczykpaweł ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance
AT kutarskiandrzej ghostawellknownbutnotfullyexplainedechocardiographicfindingduringtransvenousleadextractionclinicalsignificance