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

Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

BACKGROUND

Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures.

RESULTS

A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free-floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

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.