Predicting the difficulty of a transvenous lead extraction procedure: Validation of the LED index

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals

BACKGROUND

Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited.

METHODS

Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads.

RESULTS

The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

Infections of cardiac implantable electronic devices and how to improve transvenous lead extraction by the virtual reality

Introduction

Infections in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are increasing over time and associated with substantially mortality and healthcare costs. The best approach is the complete removal of the system by transvenous lead extraction (TLE). However, when leads are more than 10 years old, this technique requires considerable expertise and failures with the result of abandoned leads or serious complications may occur. The aim of this study is to describe our experience using virtual and mixed reality in the preoperative planning of complex cases.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients from a referral centre with CIED infections in which TLE was judged difficult. Synchronized computed tomography (CT) scan images were processed and transferred to a fully immersive virtual reality room and also to the operative room (mixed reality) for better guidance during the extracting procedure.

Results

Ten patients (seven with local and three with systemic infections) were preoperative evaluated. Processed images and virtual reality showed intense adherences of the leads to the veins, right ventricle, and right atrium endocardium and between them that preclude a difficult extraction and required a carefully planning and sometimes a different technical approach. The anticipated difficulty was confirmed by the higher times of fluoroscopy. All leads were extracted and no complications were registered.

Conclusions

Preoperative planning is essential for evaluation of TLE difficulty and prevention of unexpected situations. Virtual reality seems an estimable aid for operators in planning difficult cases and also an excellent tool for teaching.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01663-9.

Leads with the Cut Proximal Ends Migrated into the Heart and Vasculature: A Rare Phenomenon among 3847 Lead Extraction Procedures

Background: The study aimed to describe the phenomenon of leads migrated (MPLE) into the cardiovascular system (CVS). Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3847 transvenous lead extractions (TLE). Results: Over a 17-year period, 72 (1.87%) MPLEs (median dwell time 137.5 months) were extracted, which included mainly ventricular leads (56.94%). Overall, 68.06% of MPLEs had their cut proximal ends in the venous system. Most of them were pacing (95.83%) and passive fixation (98.61%) leads. Independent risk factors for MPLE included abandoned leads (OR = 8.473; p < 0.001) and leads located on both sides of the chest (2.981; p = 0.045). The higher NYHA class lowered the probability of MPLE (OR = 0.380; p < 0.001). Procedure complexity was higher in the MPLE group (procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of additional (advanced) tools and alternative venous approach). There were no more major complications in the MPLE group, but the rate of procedural success was lower due to more frequent retention of non-removable lead fragments. Extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival. Conclusions: 1. Extraction of leads with MPLE is rare among other TLE procedures (1.9%), 2. risk factors include abandoned leads and presence of leads on both sides of the chest but a higher NYHA class lowers the probability of MPLE, 3. complexity of MPLE extraction is higher regarding procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of advanced tools and techniques but rates of major complications are comparable, and 4. extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival.

Lead Break during Extraction: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Procedure Complexity and Outcome: Analysis of 3825 Procedures

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge following uncomplicated transvenous lead extraction

INTRODUCTION

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), while mostly a safe procedure, has risk of serious periprocedural complications. As such, overnight hospitalization remains a routine practice. In our center, we routinely discharge patients on the same day following an uncomplicated TLE.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent uncomplicated TLE in our center between 2019 and 2021. Same-day discharge (SDD) patients are compared with those who stayed at least overnight for observation after the TLE procedure (non-SDD group). To assess the safety of an SDD strategy after uncomplicated TLE, the main study endpoint was to compare the rate of major procedure-related complications at 1-, 7-, and 30-days. To identify the factors influencing the operator's decision to discharge the patient on the same day, the secondary endpoint was to analyze clinical and procedural predictors of SDD.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were discharged the same day after uncomplicated TLE (SDD), while 112 stayed at least overnight after the procedure (non-SDD). There was no significant difference in major procedure-related complications at 1-day (SDD 0% vs. non-SDD 1.8%, p value = ns), while patients in the SDD group had a lower rate of 7- and 30-day complications when compared with those in the non-SDD group (2.1% vs. 8.2%, p value = .0308; and 3.5% vs. 16%, p value = .0049, respectively). Noninfectious indication for TLE (OR 16.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.29-77.6) and procedure end time before 12:00 (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.11-7.27) were the only independent predictors of SDD.

CONCLUSION

SDD discharge following uncomplicated TLE in selected patients (i.e., those without device infection and when the TLE procedure is completed in the morning) is feasible and safe.

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.

LECOM (Lead Extraction COMplexity): A New Scoring System for Predicting a Difficult Procedure

(1) Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can become far more complex when unanticipated difficulties arise. The aim was to develop a simple scoring system that allows for the prediction of the difficulty and complexity of this significant procedure. (2) Methods: Based on analysis of 3741 TLE procedures with and without complicating factors (extended fluoroscopy time, need for second-line instruments, and advanced techniques and instruments), a five-point Complex Indicator of Difficulty of (TLE) Procedure (CID-TLEP) scale was developed. Two or more points on the CID-TLEP scale indicate a higher level of procedure complexity. (3) Results: Patient age below 51 years at first CIED implantation, number of abandoned leads, number of previous procedures, passive fixation and multiple leads to be extracted, and a ratio of dwell time of oldest lead to patient age during TLE of >0.13 are significant predictors of higher levels of lead extraction complexity. The ROC analysis demonstrates that a point total (being the sum of the odds ratios of the above variables) of >9.697 indicates a 21.83% higher probability of complex TLE (sensitivity 74.08%, specificity 74.46%). Finally, a logistic function was calculated, and we constructed a simple equation for lead extraction complexity that can predict the probability of a difficult procedure. The risk of complex extraction (as a percentage) is calculated as [1/(1 + 55.34 · 0.754X)] · 100 (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The LECOM score can effectively predict the risk of a difficult transvenous lead extraction procedure, and predicting the probability of a more complex procedure may help clinicians in planning lead removal and improving patient management.

Impact of fixation mechanism and helix retraction status on right ventricular lead extraction

Background

The impact of lead fixation mechanism on extractability is poorly characterized.

Objective

We aimed to compare the technical difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of active vs passive fixation right ventricular (RV) leads.

Methods

A total of 408 patients who underwent RV TLE by a single expert electrophysiologist at Oregon Health & Science University between October 2011 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively analyzed; 331 (81%) had active fixation RV leads and 77 (19%) had passive fixation RV leads. The active fixation cohort was further stratified into those with successfully retracted helices (n = 181) and failed helix retraction (n = 109). A numerical system (0-9) devised using 6 procedural criteria quantified a technical extraction score (TES) for each RV TLE. The TES was compared between groups.

Results

Helix retraction was successful in ≥55% of active fixation TLEs. The mean TES for active-helix retracted, active-helix non-retracted, and passive fixation groups was 1.8, 3.5, and 3.7, respectively. The TES of the active-helix retracted group was significantly lower than those of the active-helix non-retracted group (adjusted P < .01) and the passive fixation group (adjusted P < .01). There was no significant difference in TES between the passive fixation and active-helix non-retracted groups in multivariate analysis (P = .18). The TLE success rate of the entire cohort was >97%, with a major complication rate of 0.5%.

Conclusion

TLE of active fixation leads where helical retraction is achieved presents fewer technical challenges than does passive fixation RV lead extraction; however, if the helix cannot be retracted, active and passive TLE procedures present similar technical challenges.

Safety of same-day discharge after lead extraction procedures

BACKGROUND

Same-day discharge (SDD) after cardiovascular procedures is rapidly gaining ground.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the safety of SDD after transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent elective TLE between January 2020 and October 2021 at our institution. The primary outcome was SDD, and major procedural complications and readmissions within 30 days of the procedure were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

In this analysis of 111 patients who underwent elective TLE, 80 patients (72%) were discharged on the same day (SDD group) while 31 patients (28%) stayed overnight (overnight group). Lead malfunction was the most common indication for TLE in both groups. Patients in the overnight group were more likely to have a lead dwell time of ≤10 years than those in the SDD group (38.7% vs 20% of all leads in each group; P = .042), have laser sheaths used for extraction and a higher number of leads extracted. No major complications were reported in both groups. In a multivariate analysis, lower body mass index and the use of laser sheath during TLE were predictors of overnight stay. Patients who underwent a procedure using advanced extraction techniques were 3.5 times more likely to stay overnight (95% confidence interval 1.27-9.78; P = .016).

CONCLUSION

In appropriately selected patients undergoing elective lead extraction, SDD is feasible and safe. Higher body mass index, fewer extracted leads, shorter lead dwell times (<10 years), and less frequent use of laser-powered extraction sheaths were associated with an increased likelihood of SDD.

Transvenous lead extraction, factors affecting procedural difficulty

BACKGROUND

A complex transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedure could be associated with lower success and higher complication rates in inexperienced hands. In this study, we aim to assess the factors that determine procedural difficulty in TLE.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 200 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single referral centre from June 2020 to December 2021. Lead extraction difficulty was assessed by the success of simple manual traction with or without a locking stylet, the need for advanced extraction tools and the number of tools required to extract the lead. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to determine the factors independently affecting these 3 parameters.

RESULTS

363 leads were extracted from 200 patients (79% males, mean age 66.85 years). The indication for TLE was device-related infection in 51.5%. Multivariate analysis revealed the lead indwelling time to be the only factor affecting the 3 parameters of difficulty. Passive fixation leads and dual coil leads increased procedural difficulty by affecting 2 parameters each. Factors that affected one parameter included infected leads, coronary sinus leads, older age of the patient and a history of valvular heart disease, all associated with a simpler procedure. Right ventricular leads were associated with a more complex one.

CONCLUSION

The most important factor that increased TLE procedural difficulty was a longer lead indwelling time, followed by passive fixation and dual-coil leads. Other contributing factors were the presence of infection, coronary sinus leads, older patients, a history of valvular heart disease and right ventricular leads.

Lead Extraction in Children and Young Adults: When is the Best Time for Lead/System Replacement?

The best strategy for lead management in children is a matter of debate, and our experiences are limited. This is a retrospective single-center study comparing difficulties and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) implanted ich childhood and at age < 19 years (childhood-implanted-childhood-extracted, CICE) and at age < 19 (childhood-implanted-adulthood-extracted, CIAE). CICE patients-71 children (mean age 15.1 years) as compared to CIAE patients (114 adults (mean age 28.61 years) were more likely to have VVI than DDD pacemakers. Differences in implant duration (7.96 vs 14.08 years) appeared to be most important, but procedure complexity and outcomes also differed between the groups. Young adults with cardiac implantable electronic device implanted in childhood had more risk factors for major complications and underwent more complex procedures compared to children. Implant duration was significantly longer in CIAE patients than in children, being the most important factor that had an impact on patient safety and procedure complexity. CIAE patients were more likely to have prolonged operative duration and more complex procedures due to technical problems, and they were 2-3 times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools compared to children, but the rates of clinical and procedural success were comparable in both groups. The difference between the incidence of major complications between CICE and CIAE patients is very clear (MC 2.9 vs 7.0%, hemopericardium 1.4 vs 5.3% etc.), although statistically insignificant. Delay of lead extraction to adulthood seems to be a riskier option than planned TLE in children before growing up.

Lead Extraction-Indications, Procedure, and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

Long-term outcomes following transvenous lead extraction: Data from a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has shown a safe and efficacy profile in the intraoperative and short-term setting; however, data on long-term outcomes are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in patients who underwent TLE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who underwent TLE between 2014 and 2016 were retrospectively studied. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death and repeated TLE stratified by infective/non-infective indication. Individual components of the primary outcome were also evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one patients were included in the analysis, 50% extracted for CIED-related infection. Complete procedural success was achieved in 189 patients (99%) with no major acute complications. After a median of 6.5 years, infection indication was associated with significantly lower event-free survival (67% vs. 83% non-infection group, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-3.81, p = 0.04). All-cause mortality rate was higher in the TLE infection group (30% vs. 10%, p < 0.01). The rate of repeated TLE did not differ between groups (4% vs. 7%, p = 0.62). Among patients who had TLE for infection, the presence of vegetation (aHR 2.56; 95%CI 1.17-5.63, p = 0.02) and positive blood cultures (aHR 2.64; 95%CI 1.04-6.70, p = 0.04) were independently associated with the primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent TLE for CIED-related infection exhibit a high mortality risk during long-term follow-up. Vegetation and positive blood cultures in patients with CIED-related infection are associated with a worse prognosis regardless of successful and uncomplicated TLE.

Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures

BACKGROUND

The long-term significance of lead remnants (LR) following transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains disputable, especially in infectious patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3741 TLEs focused on the relationship between LR and procedure complexity, complications and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 156 individuals with LR (4.17%), and the control group consisted of 3585 patients with completely removed lead(s). In a multivariable model, a younger patient age at CIED implantation, more CIED procedures and procedure complexity were independent risk factors for retention of non-removable LR. Although patients with LR showed better survival outcomes following TLE (log rank p = 0.041 for non-infectious group and p = 0.017 for infectious group), multivariable Cox regression analysis did not confirm the prognostic significance of LR either in non-infectious [HR = 0.777; p = 0.262], infectious [HR = 0.983; p = 0.934] or the entire group of patients [HR = 0.858; p = 0.321].

CONCLUSIONS

1. Non-removable LRs are encountered in 4.17% of patients. 2. CIED infection has no influence on retention of LRs, but younger patient age, multiple CIED-related procedures and higher levels of procedure complexity are independent risk factors for the presence of LR. 3. Better survival outcomes following TLE in patients with LRs are not the effects of their presence but younger patient and better health status.

Unexpected Procedure Difficulties Increasing the Complexity of Transvenous Lead Extraction: The Single Centre Experience with 3721 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should be completed, even when facing difficulties which have yet to be described. The aim was to explore unexpected TLE obstacles (the circumstances of the occurrence and influence on TLE outcome).

METHODS

The retrospective analysis of a single centre database containing 3721 TLEs.

RESULTS

Unexpected procedure difficulties (UPDs) occurred in 18.43% of cases (singles in 12.20% of cases and multiples in 6.26% of cases). These included blockages in the lead venous approach in3.28% of cases, functional lead dislodgement in 0.91% of cases, and loss of broken lead fragment in 0.60% of cases. All of them, including implant vein-in 7.98% of cases, lead fracture during extraction-in 3.84% of cases, and lead-to-lead adherence-in 6.59% of cases, Byrd dilator collapse-in 3.41% of cases, including the use of an alternative prolonged the procedure but had no influence on long-term mortality. Most of the occurrences were associated with lead dwell time, younger patient age, lead burden, and poorer procedure effectiveness and complications (common cause). However, some of the problems seemed to be related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and the subsequent lead management strategy. A more complete list of all tips and tricks is still required.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The complexity of the lead extraction procedure combines both prolonged procedure duration and the occurrence of lesser-known UPDs. (2) UPDs are present in nearly one fifth of the TLE procedures, and can occur simultaneously. (3) UPDs, which usually force the extractor to expand the range of techniques and tools, should become part of the training in transvenous lead extraction.

Same-day discharge after transvenous lead extraction: feasibility and outcomes

AIMS

Same-day discharge (SDD) is safe for patients undergoing electrophysiology procedures. There is no existing data regarding SDD for patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We report our experience with SDD for patients undergoing TLE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study group included patients undergoing TLE between February 2020 and July 2021 without an infectious indication. A modified SDD protocol for device implants/ablations was applied to TLE patients. Patient characteristics, extraction details, outcomes, and complications were reviewed. Of 239 patients undergoing TLE, 210 were excluded (94 infections and 116 did not meet SDD criteria). Of the remaining 29 patients, seven stayed due to patient preference and 22 were discharged home the same day. The SDD group had an average age of 65.9 ± 12 (47-84), 41% female, and LVEF of 52.2 ± 18% (10-80). The indication for TLE was malfunction (20), upgrade (4), advisory lead (2), and magnetic resonance imaging compatibility (1). Extractions included four implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), 17 pacemakers (PPM), and one cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-P system. The leads were 9.6 years (1.5-21.7) old, and 1.8 leads were removed per patient (1-3); the lead extraction difficulty (LED) score was 11.6 ± 7. Twenty underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) re-implantation (2 ICD, 3 CRT-D, 13 PPM, and 2 CRT-P). For CIED re-implants, patients sent a remote transmission the next day, and all patients received a next-day call. There were no procedure or device-related issues, morbidities, or mortalities in the 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Same-day discharge after TLE for non-infectious aetiologies is safe and feasible in a select group of patients with early procedure completion who meet strict SDD criteria.

Surgical Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Complications in Patients Unsuitable for Transvenous Lead Extraction

BACKGROUND

Although surgical approaches for infected or failing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads are more invasive than transvenous approaches, they are still required for patients considered unsuitable for transvenous procedures. In this study, surgical management with transvenous equipment for CIED complications was examined in patients unsuitable for transvenous lead extraction.Methods and Results: We retrospectively examined 152 consecutive patients who underwent CIED extraction between April 2009 and December 2021 at the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School. Nine patients (5.9%; mean [±SD] age 61.7±16.7 years) who underwent open heart surgery were identified as unsuitable for the isolated transvenous approach. CIED types included 5 pacemakers and 4 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; the mean [±SD] lead age was 19.5±7.0 years. Indications for surgical management according to Heart Rhythm Society guidelines included failed prior to transvenous CIED extraction (n=6), intracardiac vegetation (n=2), and severe lead adhesion (n=1). Transvenous CIED extraction tools were used in all patients during or before surgery. Additional surgical procedures with CIED extraction included epicardial lead implantation (n=4) and tricuspid valve repair (n=3). All patients were discharged; during the follow-up period (mean 5.7±3.7 years), only 1 patient died (non-cardiac cause).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical procedures and transvenous extraction tools were combined in the removal strategy for efficacious surgical management of CIED leads. Intensive surgical procedures were safely performed in patients unsuitable for transvenous extraction.

Feasibility and safety of a transvenous lead extraction program implementation in South America: Challenges, early outcomes, and global collaboration-A single-center experience

Background

Transvenous lead extraction is the standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) malfunction/infection-related removal. However, data on its performance and results in underdeveloped countries are limited.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to report the feasibility and efficacy of a lead extraction program in a tertiary hospital in Chile, South America.

Methods

Patients requiring CIED removal at the Electrophysiology Division of the Hospital las Higuera's were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes including procedure-related mortality, procedural success and failure, and cardiac and vascular complications were reported.

Results

A total of 15 patients were analyzed (median age 68 [interquartile range 52-75] years; 80% male). Patients with lead extraction difficulty index >10 represented 33% of patients. Infection was the indication for removal in all patients, with pocket infection (80%). Mechanical rotational tools were used in 66% of cases, and a total of 29 leads were removed. Procedural success was accomplished in 93% of cases. There was 1 (7%) intraprocedural complication and no procedure-related mortality.

Conclusions

The development of a lead management program is feasible, safe, and effective in underdeveloped countries.

Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance

BACKGROUND

Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs.

RESULTS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480].

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Lead-related infective endocarditis with vegetations: Prevalence and impact of pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and impact of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with lead-related infective endocarditis undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are unknown.

METHODS

Twenty-five consecutive patients with vegetations ≥10 mm at transoesophageal echocardiography were prospectively studied. Contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) was performed before (pre-TLE) and after (post-TLE) the lead extraction procedure.

RESULTS

Pre-TLE CT identified 18 patients (72%) with subclinical PE. The size of vegetations in patients with PE did not differ significantly from those without (median 20.0 mm [interquartile range: 13.0-30.0] vs. 14.0 mm [6.0-18.0], p = 0.116). Complete TLE success was achieved in all patients with 3 (2-3) leads extracted per procedure. There were no postprocedure complications related to the presence of PE and no differences in terms of fluoroscopy time and need for advanced tools. In the group of positive pre-TLE CT, post-TLE scan confirmed the presence of silent PE in 14 patients (78%). There were no patients with new PE formation. Large vegetations (≥20 mm) tended to increase the risk of post-TLE subclinical PE (odds ratio 5.99 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-38.6], p = 0.059). During a median 19.4 months follow-up, no re-infection of the implanted system was reported. Survival rates in patients with and without post-TLE PE were similar (hazard ratio: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.18-6.67], p = 0.909).

CONCLUSION

Subclinical PE detected by CT was common in patients undergoing TLE with lead-related infective endocarditis and vegetations but was not associated with the complexity of the procedure or adverse outcomes. TLE procedure seems safe and feasible even in patients with large vegetations.

The Role of Preoperative Venography in Predicting the Difficulty of a Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedure

INTRODUCTION

We hypothesized that an accurate assessment of preoperative venography could be useful in predicting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) difficulty.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A dedicated preoperative venogram was performed in consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device who underwent TLE. The level of stenosis was classified as without significant stenosis, moderate, severe, and occlusion. The presence of extensive lead-venous wall adherence (≥50 mm) was also assessed. A total of 105 patients (median age 71 years; 72% male) with a median of 2(1-2) leads to extract were enrolled. Preoperative venography showed moderate to severe stenosis in 31(30%), complete occlusion in 15(14%), and extensive lead-venous wall adherence in 50 (48%) patients. Complete TLE success was achieved in 103(98%) patients. Fifty-five (52%) were advanced extractions as they required a power mechanical and/or laser sheath. They were more prevalent in the group with extensive lead-venous wall adherence (72% vs. 34%, p<0.001), while no differences were found between patients with and without venous occlusion. In multivariate analysis, the presence of adherence was a predictor of advanced extraction (odds ratio 2.89[1.14-7.32], p=0.025). The fluoroscopy time was also significantly longer (14.0[8.2-18.7] vs. 5.1[2.1-10.0] min, p<0.001). The rate of complications did not differ based on the presence of venous lesions.

CONCLUSION

Although procedural success and complication rates were similar, patients with extensive lead-venous wall adherence required a longer fluoroscopy time and were 3 times more likely to need advanced extraction tools. Conversely, the presence of total venous occlusion had no impact on the procedure complexity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Machine learning-derived major adverse event prediction of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction: Using the ESC EHRA EORP European lead extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains a high-risk procedure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a machine learning (ML)-based risk stratification system to predict the risk of major adverse events (MAEs) after TLE. A MAE was defined as procedure-related major complication and procedure-related death.

METHODS

We designed and evaluated an ML-based risk stratification system trained using the European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) registry to predict the risk of MAEs in 3555 patients undergoing TLE and tested this on an independent registry of 1171 patients. ML models were developed, including a self-normalizing neural network (SNN), stepwise logistic regression model ("stepwise model"), support vector machines, and random forest model. These were compared with the ELECTRa Registry Outcome Score (EROS) for MAEs.

RESULTS

There were 53 MAEs (1.7%) in the training cohort and 24 (2.4%) in the test cohort. Thirty-two clinically important features were used to train the models. ML techniques were similar to EROS by balanced accuracy (stepwise model: 0.74 vs EROS: 0.70) and superior by area under the curve (support vector machines: 0.764 vs EROS: 0.677). The SNN provided a finite risk for MAE and accurately identified MAE in 14 of 169 "high (>80%) risk" patients (8.3%) and no MAEs in all 198 "low (<20%) risk" patients (100%).

CONCLUSION

ML models incrementally improved risk prediction for identifying those at risk of MAEs. The SNN has the additional advantage of providing a personalized finite risk assessment for patients. This may aid patient decision making and allow better preoperative risk assessment and resource allocation.

Successful transvenous lead extraction of abandoned lead implanted through persistent left superior vena cava

Persistent left superior vena cava, the most common thoracic venous anomaly, may complicate transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We report a successful case of TLE in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava, despite a long dwelling time and several pocket revisions due to pocket infection. The lead was removed via a hand-powered mechanical extraction sheath, and postoperative complications did not occur. Complicated TLE cases may have a better outcome if performed in a high-volume center with experienced specialists.

Comparative outcomes of Riata and Fidelis lead management strategies: Results from the NCDR-ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata®/Riata ST® leads are at risk of failure and are subject to FDA recall. Comparative risks of various lead management strategies during elective generator change in a multi-center population are unknown. We aim to describe patients with functional, recalled ICD leads undergoing elective generator replacement and report outcomes according to lead management strategies.

METHODS

Using data from the NCDR ICD Registry, patients with a functioning Riata® or Fidelis® lead undergoing generator replacement are described according to lead management: reuse, abandon/replace, and extract/replace. Adjusted rates of death and pre-discharge complications are reported.

RESULTS

There were 13,144 generator replacement procedures involving a functioning, non-infected Riata® or Fidelis® lead (extraction n = 414, abandonment n = 427). Extraction patients were younger (mean 58 vs. 67 years) with fewer comorbidities than the reuse group. Maximum lead dwell time was similar between groups with average 94, 90, and 99 months in the extraction, abandonment, and reuse groups, respectively. In-hospital complications or mortality were more common in the extraction group (10.14%, 4.35%) compared with abandonment (1.64%, 0.47%) and reuse (0.22%, 0.07%). Compared with reuse, the adjusted odds of death or pre-discharge complication were significantly higher in the extraction group (OR 7.77 95% CI 2.42-24.95, p < .001) but not the abandonment group (OR 1.70 95% CI 0.52-5.61, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world population, extraction of functional recalled ICD leads was associated with significant risk of in-hospital mortality and complications. Additional work is needed to clarify whether longer term outcomes balance these peri-procedural risks.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with persistent left superior vena cava

PURPOSE

Predictors of difficulty and complications of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) have been investigated in several studies; however, little is known about the venous anatomical characteristics that can have an impact on procedural outcomes. Among them, the persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a common anomaly often discovered incidentally during cardiac device implantation and could raise concerns if TLE is indicated. We report technical considerations and outcomes of TLE for two patients with leads implanted via PLSVC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two cardiac implantable electronic device recipients with isolated PLSVC required TLE due to infective endocarditis in one case and lead failure in the other. In the first case, TLE procedure was performed in a hybrid operating room with minimally invasive video-assisted thoracoscopic monitoring due to the high procedural risk. Two active fixation 20-year-old pacing leads were removed with a relatively short fluoroscopy time. In the second case, we successfully extracted a single-coil active fixation lead without the need of a locking stylet or advanced extraction tools. There were no procedural complications or adverse events at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TLE procedures for two patients with isolated PLSVC were successfully completed with less difficulty and tools than expected based on the characteristics of the targeted leads. If indicated, TLE in the presence of a PLSVC should be considered in experienced centers.

Effectiveness and Safety of Transvenous Removal of Cardiac Pacing and Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Leads in the Real Clinical Scenario

Fundamento

Remoção de cabos-eletrodos de dispositivos cardíacos eletrônicos implantáveis (DCEI) é procedimento pouco frequente e sua realização exige longo treinamento profissional e infraestrutura adequada.

Objetivos

Avaliar a efetividade e a segurança da remoção de cabos-eletrodos de DCEI e determinar fatores de risco para complicações cirúrgicas e mortalidade em 30 dias.

Métodos

Estudo prospectivo com dados derivados da prática clínica. De janeiro/2014 a abril/2020, foram incluídos, consecutivamente, 365 pacientes submetidos à remoção de cabos-eletrodos, independentemente da indicação e técnica cirúrgica utilizada. Os desfechos primários foram: taxa de sucesso do procedimento, taxa combinada de complicações maiores e morte intraoperatória. Os desfechos secundários foram: fatores de risco para complicações intraoperatórias maiores e morte em 30 dias. Empregou-se análise univariada e multivariada, com nível de significância de 5%.

Resultados

A taxa de sucesso do procedimento foi de 96,7%, sendo 90,1% de sucesso completo e 6,6% de sucesso clínico. Complicações maiores intraoperatórias ocorreram em 15 (4,1%) pacientes. Fatores preditores de complicações maiores foram: tempo de implante dos cabos-eletrodos ≥ 7 anos (OR= 3,78, p= 0,046) e mudança de estratégia cirúrgica (OR= 5,30, p= 0,023). Classe funcional III-IV (OR= 6,98, p<0,001), insuficiência renal (OR= 5,75, p=0,001), infecção no DCEI (OR= 13,30, p<0,001), número de procedimentos realizados (OR= 77,32, p<0,001) e complicações maiores intraoperatórias (OR= 38,84, p<0,001) foram fatores preditores para mortalidade em 30 dias.

Conclusões

Os resultados desse estudo, que é o maior registro prospectivo de remoção de cabos-eletrodos da América Latina, confirmam a segurança e a efetividade desse procedimento no cenário da prática clínica real. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(6):1114-1124)

Characterization of Lead Adherence Using Intravascular Ultrasound to Assess Difficulty of Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background:

Clinical factors associated with development of intravascular lead adherence (ILA) are unreliable predictors. Because vascular injury in the superior vena cava-right atrium during transvenous lead extraction is more likely to occur in segments with higher degrees of ILA, reliable and accurate assessment of ILA is warranted. We hypothesized that intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) could accurately visualize and quantify ILA and degree of ILA correlates with transvenous lead extraction difficulty.

Methods:

Serial imaging of leads occurred before transvenous lead extraction using IVUS. ILA areas were classified as high or low grade. Degree of extraction difficulty was assessed using 2 metrics and correlated with ILA grade. Lead extraction difficulty was calculated for each patient and compared with IVUS findings.

Results:

One hundred fifty-eight vascular segments in 60 patients were analyzed: 141 (89%) low grade versus 17 (11%) high grade. Median extraction time (low=0 versus high grade=97 seconds, P <0.001) and median laser pulsations delivered (low=0 versus high grade=5852, P <0.001) were significantly higher in high-grade segments. Most patients with low lead extraction difficulty score had low ILA grades. Eighty-six percentage of patients with high lead extraction difficulty score had low IVUS grade, and the degree of transvenous lead extraction difficulty was similar to patients with low IVUS grades and lead extraction difficulty scores.

Conclusions:

IVUS is a feasible imaging modality that may be useful in characterizing ILA in the superior vena cava-right atrium region. An ILA grading system using imaging correlates with extraction difficulty. Most patients with clinical factors associated with higher extraction difficulty may exhibit lower ILA and extraction difficulty based on IVUS imaging.

Graphic Abstract:

A graphic abstract is available for this article.

The effect of centre volume and procedure location on major complications and mortality from transvenous lead extraction: an ESC EHRA EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry subanalysis

Aims 

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should ideally be undertaken by experienced operators in a setting that allows urgent surgical intervention. In this analysis of the ELECTRa registry, we sought to determine whether there was a significant difference in procedure complications and mortality depending on centre volume and extraction location.

Methods and results 

Analysis of the ESC EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry was conducted. Low-volume (LoV) centres were defined as &lt;30 procedures/year, and high-volume (HiV) centres as ≥30 procedures/year. Three thousand, two hundred, and forty-nine patients underwent TLE by a primary operator cardiologist; 17.1% in LoV centres and 82.9% in HiV centres. Procedures performed by primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres were less likely to be successful (93.5% vs. 97.1%; P &lt; 0.0001) and more likely to be complicated by procedure-related deaths (1.1% vs. 0.4%; P = 0.0417). Transvenous lead extraction undertaken by primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres were associated with increased procedure-related major complications including death (odds ratio 1.858, 95% confidence interval 1.007–3.427; P = 0.0475). Transvenous lead extraction locations varied; 52.0% operating room, 9.5% hybrid theatre and 38.5% catheterization laboratory. Rates of procedure-related major complications, including death occurring in a high-risk environment (combining operating room and hybrid theatre), were similar to those undertaken in the catheterization laboratory (1.7% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.9297).

Conclusion 

Primary operator cardiologists in LoV centres are more likely to have extractions complicated by procedure-related deaths. There was no significant difference in procedure complications between different extraction settings. These findings support the need for TLE to be performed in experienced centres with appropriate personnel present.

The MB score: a new risk stratification index to predict the need for advanced tools in lead extraction procedures

Aims

A validated risk stratification schema for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) could improve the management of these procedures. We aimed to derive and validate a scoring system to efficiently predict the need for advanced tools to achieve TLE success.

Methods and results

Between November 2013 and March 2018, 1960 leads were extracted in 973 consecutive TLE procedures in two national referral sites using a stepwise approach. A procedure was defined as advanced extraction if required the use of powered sheaths and/or snares. The study population was a posteriori 1:1 randomized in derivation and validation cohorts. In the derivation cohort, presence of more than two targeted leads (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, P = 0.049), 3-year-old (OR 3.04, P = 0.001), 5-year-old (OR 3.48, P &lt; 0.001), 10-year-old (OR 3.58, P = 0.008) oldest lead, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR 3.84, P &lt; 0.001), and passive fixation lead (OR 1.91, P = 0.032) were selected by a stepwise procedure and constituted the MB score showing a C-statistics of 0.82. In the validation group, the MB score was significantly associated with the risk of advanced extraction (OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval 2.02-2.86, P &lt; 0.001) and showed an increase in event rate with increasing score. A low value (threshold = 1) ensured 100% sensibility and 100% negative predictive value, while a high value (threshold = 5) allowed a specificity of 92.8% and a positive predictive value of 91.9%.

Conclusion

In this study, we developed and tested a simple point-based scoring system able to efficiently identify patients at low and high risk of needing advanced tools during TLE procedures.

Overview of Lead Management

Lead management describes a comprehensive approach to cardiac implantable electronic device lead utilization, encompassing lead and device selection, vascular access, implant techniques, handling lead failures and recalls, managing infectious and other complications, and performing device and lead extraction. Device and lead selection should be based on the latest guidelines and the available data to choose the optimal device system for each patient. Lead extraction is a highly specialized procedure and should be carried out by a team of personnel extensively trained in the procedure at centers with cardiac surgical support.

Anesthesia Considerations for Lead Extraction

The role of the anesthesiologist in lead extraction procedures is multifaceted and highlights the collaborative, multidisciplinary teamwork needed to ensure patient safety and procedural success in these complex cases. Thorough preoperative evaluation and identification of high-risk characteristics enable the anesthesiologist to tailor a comprehensive intraoperative and postoperative care plan for each case. Institutional practices may vary but anesthetic management typically includes general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube, invasive measurement of arterial blood pressure, vascular access for rapid volume expansion, echocardiographic monitoring, preparation for blood transfusion, and initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass in the event of an emergency.

Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has continued to rise along with indications for their removal. When confronted with challenging clinical scenarios such as device infection, malfunction or vessel occlusion, patients often require the prompt removal of CIED hardware, including associated leads. Recent advancements in percutaneous methods have enabled physicians to face a myriad of complex lead extractions with efficiency and safety. Looking ahead, emerging technologies hold great promise in making extractions safer and more accessible for patients worldwide. This review will provide the most up-to-date indications and procedural approaches for lead extractions and insight on the future trends in this novel field.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Monitoring of Laser Lead Extraction by Femoral Route

A 72-year-old man with a dual-chamber implantable defibrillator was referred to our center for transvenous lead extraction because of pocket infection and presence of an abandoned lead. We decided to proceed with a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach because of patient history and documented complete occlusion of the right subclavian vein. During the use of excimer laser for persistent adhesions, the ventricular lead broke down at the level of cavoatrial junction. To successfully remove the remaining portion of lead, we decided to use the excimer laser by femoral route. A final angiography through the laser sheath showed the integrity of the myocardial wall. We report a case of laser-assisted transvenous lead extraction unconventionally performed by the femoral route. A preventive minimally invasive cardiac surgery was implemented to provide more safety in this high-risk procedure. This technique may avoid the need of a full sternotomy in case of major bleeding complications.

Hybrid minimally invasive technique with the bidirectional rotational Evolution® mechanical sheath for transvenous lead extraction: A collaboration between electrophysiologists and cardiac surgeons

We report a case of a 63-year-old man referred for lead extraction with the bidirectional rotational Evolution ® RL mechanical sheath because of systemic infection. As it was judged a "high-risk" procedure, we opted for a "hybrid," minimally invasive approach consisting in a minithoracotomic access. This technique is a feasible approach, and it might be a potential safer alternative in the most challenging transvenous lead extraction procedures.

Long-term outcomes of prophylactic placement of an endovascular balloon in the vena cava for high-risk transvenous lead extractions

BACKGROUND

Many clinicians use the strategy of prophylactically placing an endovascular balloon before transvenous lead extraction, yet there are no data regarding this practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses long-term outcomes of prophylactic placement of an endovascular balloon in the venae cavae of patients during transvenous lead extraction.

METHODS

From April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 data were prospectively collected at 2 international cardiovascular centers on patients who had the balloon prophylactically placed in the venae cavae. Patients were monitored for a minimum of 3 months to capture any associated adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients had the balloon prophylactically placed in the venae cavae during lead extraction. Sixteen patients were male (76%); the mean age was 57.6 ± 18.7 years; and the mean body mass index was 26.1 ± 4.4 kg/m². The mean lead dwell time was 11.2 ± 8.3 years, with an average of 2.2 ± 1.1 leads per case, and most indications for extraction were noninfectious (62%). Two minor complications (10%, pocket hematomas) and 1 major complication (5%, cardiac tamponade) occurred during the procedure. All cases (100%) were procedural successes, and all patients (100%) were discharged alive. On follow-up (6.8 ± 3.7 months), all patients were alive and reported no adverse events related to prophylactic balloon placement, such as pulmonary emboli or deep venous thrombi.

CONCLUSION

During the study period, we observed no acute or long-term adverse outcomes associated with prophylactic placement of an endovascular balloon in the venae cavae of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction.