Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Monitoring excimer laser-guided cardiac lead extractions by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Though laser guided extractions of cardiac implantable electronic devices leads have become a routine procedure, the severe complications are associated with a high mortality. Here, we report our single center experience using uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy for laser lead extraction and compare it to stand-alone laser lead extraction.

METHODS

The intraoperative data and postoperative clinical outcomes of patients undergoing laser lead extraction with concomitant thoracoscopy (N = 28) or without (N = 43) in our institution were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Neither the median x-ray time (612.0 s for the thoracoscopy group vs. 495.5 s for the non-thoracoscopy group, p = 0.962), length of the operation (112.5 vs. 100.0 min, p = 0.676) or the median length of hospital stay (9.0 vs. 10.0 days, p = 0.990) differed significantly. The mean intensive care unit stay was longer for patients in the non-thoracoscopy group (0.8 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.005). The 30-day-mortality in the thoracoscopy group was zero, whereas five patients died in the non-thoracoscopy group. Furthermore, four patients in the non-thoracoscopy group had encountered haemothorax, while none were observed in the thoracoscopy group (p = 0.148).

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy during laser-guided lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices can be considered safe and does not lengthen the operating time or hospital stay. It might be useful in the detection of severe complications and, in experienced hands, possibly allow direct bleeding control.