Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis

Transvenous lead extraction safety and efficacy in infected and noninfected patients using mechanical-only tools: Prospective registry from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a well-established treatment option for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TLE in CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TLE between 2016 and 2022 entered the EXTRACT Registry. Models of prediction were constructed for periprocedural clinical and procedural success and the incidence of major complications, including death in 30 days.

RESULTS

The registry enrolled 504 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 12.8 years; 65.7% male). Complete procedural success was achieved in 474 patients (94.0%) and clinical success in 492 patients (97.6%). The total number of major and minor complications was 16 (3.2%) and 51 (10%), respectively. Three patients (0.6%) died during the procedure. New York Heart Association functional class IV and C-reactive protein levels defined before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in CIED infection patients. The time since the last preceding procedure and platelet count before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in non-CIED infection patients.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is safe and successfully performed in most patients, with a low major complication rate. CIED infection patients demonstrate better periprocedural clinical success and complete procedural success. However, CIED infection predicts higher 30-day mortality compared with non-CIED infection patients. Predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days, differ between CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

Safety and success of transvenous lead extraction using excimer laser sheaths: a meta-analysis of over 1700 patients

AIMS

While numerous studies have demonstrated favourable safety and efficacy of the excimer laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in smaller cohorts, comprehensive large-scale investigations with contemporary data remain scarce. This study aims to evaluate the safety and performance of laser-assisted TLE through a meta-analysis of contemporary data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that assessed the safety and performance of the spectranetics laser sheath (SLS) II and GlideLight Excimer laser sheaths in TLE procedures between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021. Safety outcomes included procedure-related death and major/minor complications. Performance outcomes included procedural and clinical success rates. A random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted average of the evaluated outcomes. In total, 17 articles were identified and evaluated, including 1729 patients with 2887 leads. Each patient, on average, had 2.3 ± 0.3 leads with a dwell time of 7.9 ± 3.0 years. The TLE procedural successes rate was 96.8% [1440/1505; 95% CI: (94.9-98.2%)] per patient and 96.3% [1447/1501; 95% CI: (94.8-97.4%)] per lead, and the clinical success rate per patient was 98.3% [989/1010, 95% CI: (97.4-99.0%)]. The procedure-related death rate was 0.08% [7/1729, 95% CI: (0.00%, 0.34%)], with major and minor complication rates of 1.9% [41/1729; 95% CI: (1.2-2.8%)] and 1.9% [58/1729; 95% CI: (0.8-3.6%)], respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that excimer laser sheath-assisted TLE has high success and low procedural mortality rates. It provides clinicians with a reliable and valuable resource for extracting indwelling cardiac leads which require advanced extraction techniques.

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.

Transvenous lead extraction in children with bidirectional rotational dissection sheaths

Objectives

Due to the limited longevity of endovascular leads, children require thoughtful lifetime lead management strategies including conservation of access vessel patency. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in children, however, data on TLE and the use of powered mechanical dissection sheaths is limited.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study analyzing all children <18 years that underwent TLE in our institution from 2015 to 2022. Procedural complexity, results and complications were defined as recommended by recent consensus statements.

Results

Twenty-eight children [median age 12.8 (interquartile range 11.3-14.6) years] were included. Forty-one leads were extracted [median dwell time 85 (interquartile range 52-102) months]. Extractions of 31 leads (76%) in 22 patients (79%) were complex, requiring advanced extraction tools including powered bidirectional rotational dissection sheaths in 14 children. There were no major complications. Complete procedural success was achieved in 18 (64%) and clinical success in 27 patients (96%), respectively. Procedural success and complexity varied between lead types. The Medtronic SelectSecure™ lead was associated with increased odds of extraction by simple traction (p = 0.006) and complete procedural success (p < 0.001) while the Boston Scientific Fineline™ II lead family had increased odds of partial procedural failure (p = 0.017).

Conclusions

TLE with the use of mechanical powered rotational dissection sheaths is feasible and safe in pediatric patients. In light of rare complications and excellent overall clinical success, TLE should be considered an important cornerstone in lifetime lead management in children. Particular lead types might be more challenging and less successful to extract.

Cardiac tamponade as an inherent but potentially nonfatal complication of transvenous lead extraction: Experience with 1126 procedures performed using mechanical tools

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac tamponade (CT) is one of the most common and dangerous complications of transvenous lead extraction (TLE). So far, however, there has been little discussion about the problem.

METHODS

We analyzed the occurrence of CT in a group of 1226 patients undergoing TLE at a single reference center between June, 2015 and February, 2021. Using standard mechanical devices as first-line tools, a total of 2092 leads had been extracted.

RESULTS

CT occurred in 18 patients (1.47%): due to injury to the wall of the right atrium in 14 patients (1.14%) and other cardiac walls in four patients (0.33%). Younger patient age at first implantation, female gender, high left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), lower New York Heart Association class, low Charlson comorbidity index, longer implant duration, and the number of previous procedures related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are important patient-related risk factors for CT. Significant procedure-related risk factors include the number of extracted leads, extraction of atrial leads and longer dwell time of extracted leads. Intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) provides a lot of information about pulling on various cardiac structures and is able to detect a very early phase of bleeding to the pericardial sac. As a result of implementing best practices guidance in performing extraction procedures and close collaboration with cardiac surgeons that allowed immediate rescue intervention in our series of 18 CT cases, there were no procedure-related deaths (mortality 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The need for rescue surgery due to CT has no influence on clinical and procedural success. Early diagnosed (TEE monitoring) and properly managed CT does not generate any additional risk in short- and long-term follow-up after TLE.