Home  About us  Contact
 

Lead Extraction (lead + extraction)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

A Survey of the Practice of Lead Extraction in the United States

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2010
CHARLES A. HENRIKSON M.D.
Background:,Endovascular lead extraction is an important component of the management of patients with chronically implanted arrhythmia control devices. Although it is associated with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality, there is little information about its scope and practice. Methods:,We surveyed 1,000 physician members of the Heart Rhythm Society via e-mail solicitation. Results:,Of the 252 respondents (25%), 221 (88%) reported either performing extractions themselves (63%), or having privileges at a hospital where extractions are performed (25%). Electrophysiologists perform extractions at most sites (83%) but cardiac surgeons perform endovascular lead extraction at a significant minority of sites (20%). Most respondents report low annual volumes of extractions at their site: 15% reported <10 procedures/year, 42% 10,25 procedures/year, 23% 26,50 procedure/year, and only 19% reported >50 procedures/year. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported that extractions were done in the operating room (OR) with surgeon present or immediately available, 39% in the electrophysiology (EP) lab with surgeon and OR identified and available, and 25% in EP lab without a surgeon or OR identified. The overall risks of lead extraction were felt to be 1,5% of major complication and 0.5,1% of mortality, roughly in line with published data. Conclusions:,While there is agreement as to the risk of major complication and death from lead extraction, the degree of surgical availability varies considerably. The new guidelines document recommends the ability to promptly initiate an emergent surgical procedure, and this should be an important goal for all extractionists. (PACE 2010; 33:721,726) [source]

Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction: Predictors of Mortality during Follow-Up

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2010
SHOAIB HAMID M.D.
Background:Extraction of cardiac implantable electric devices is an accepted procedure when systems become infected or malfunction. However, there is an associated morbidity and mortality. We report our 5-year experience and identify predictors of mortality, and long-term follow-up. Methods:We analyzed extraction data from January 2003 to November 2007. Extraction methods used were: locking stylets, telescoping sheaths ± laser, and femoral work stations. Results:One hundred and eighty-three cases were referred, aged 65 ± 16 years (range 28,83); 76% were males. Mean implant time was 75 months (range 4,312 months) and indications were: pocket infection (48%), nonfunctioning lead (22%), erosion through skin (18%), endocarditis/septicemia (11%), bilateral superior vena cava thrombosis (0.5%), and painful lead (0.5%). The number of leads extracted were 369, with complete removal in 90.7% and partial in 7.6%. There were no intraoperative deaths but five (2.7%) died within the same admission as their extraction from overwhelming sepsis. Twelve deaths (6.6%) occurred during an average follow-up of 965 days (range 40,1670). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that C-reactive protein preprocedure was predictive of acute in-hospital mortality. Conclusions:Intravascular lead extraction is a safe and efficient method of removing leads. However, there is a subgroup of patients with systemic sepsis with raised inflammatory markers who are at high risk of in-hospital mortality. Long-term follow-up demonstrates mortality which is a marker of the underlying etiology for device implantation, with heart failure patients particularly at risk. (PACE 2010; 33:209,216) [source]

Transfemoral Snaring and Stabilization of Pacemaker and Defibrillator Leads to Maintain Vascular Access During Lead Extraction

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2009
AVI FISCHER M.D.
Background: Lead extraction is an effective method for removing pacemaker and defibrillator leads and to obtain venous access when central veins are occluded. Objective: We report a series of patients who required lead extraction and preservation of vascular access requiring a vascular snare introduced from the femoral vein to provide traction on the lead. This technique allowed advancement of the extraction sheath beyond the level of vascular occlusion, preserving vascular access in all patients. Methods: All patients had peripheral contrast venography performed immediately prior to the procedure to identify the site(s) of venous occlusion. An extraction sheath was employed and with direct manual traction, the lead tip pulled free from the myocardial surface prior to advancement of the sheath beyond the occlusion. A transfemoral snare was used to grasp the distal portion of the lead and traction was used to immobilize the lead. Results: In all patients, transfemoral snaring of the leads was necessary to allow safe advancement of a sheath to open the occluded venous system. There were no complications in any of the patients. Conclusion: Our series demonstrates the simple and safe technique of transfemoral lead snaring to assist lead extraction and maintain vascular access in the setting of venous occlusion, when the distal lead tip pulls free of the myocardium before an extraction sheath is passed beyond the point of venous obstruction. [source]

Laser Lead Extraction: Predictors of Success and Complications

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROUX M.D.
Background: Paralleling the rise in pacemaker and defibrillator implantations, lead extraction procedures are increasingly required. Concerns regarding failure and complications remain. Methods and Results: A total of 200 lead extraction procudures were performed at the Montreal Heart Institute between September 2000 and August 2005. In 23 patients, all leads were removed by traction with a locking stylet. A total of 270 leads were extracted using a laser sheath system (Spectranectics, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) in 177 procedures involving 175 patients (74% male), age 62±16 years. Procedural indications were: infection 88 (50%), dysfunction 54 (30%), upgrade 21 (12%), and other 14 (8%). Overall, 241 leads (89%) were successfully extracted, 7 (3%) were partially extracted (,4 cm retained), and 22 (8%) were non-extractable. In multivariate analyses, predictors of failed extraction were longer time from implant (OR 1.16 per year, P=0.0001) and history of hypertension (OR 5.2, P=0.0023). Acute complications occurred in 14 of 177 procedures (7.9%): 8 (4.5%) minor and 6 (3.4%) major, with one death. In multivariate analyses, the only predictor of acute complications was laser lead extraction from both right and left sides during the same procedure (OR 9.4, P = 0.0119). In addition, 3 of 10 patients with failed or partially extracted infected systems eventually required open chest explantation because of endocarditis. Conclusion: Most leads not amenable to manual traction may be successfully extracted by a percutaneous laser sheath system. While most complications are minor, major complications including death may occur. Older leads are at higher risk for failed extraction. Endocarditis may ensue if infected leads are incompletely removed. [source]

Venous Occlusion of the Access Vein in Patients Referred for Lead Extraction:

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 8 2003
Influence of Patient, Lead Characteristics
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of patient and lead characteristics on occlusion of the access vein in pacemaker and ICD patients. Contrast venography of the access vein was obtained in 89 patients (17 patients with an ICD) scheduled for lead extraction. The indication for extraction was infection in 57 patients (systemic infection in 9) and lead malfunction in 32 patients. In 6 of the 89 patients, leads were introduced in both the right and left subpectoral area, resulting in a total of 95 venous entry sites. In 22 of these entry sites one lead was present, in 61 two leads, in 11 three, and in 1 four leads. The vessel patency was graded open or occluded. Occlusion of the subclavian vein occurred in four (13%) patients with lead malfunction versus 18 (32%) patients with infection (P = 0.07). In patients with systemic infection, 5 of 9 showed venous occlusion (P = 0.01 when compared to patients with malfunction, odds ratio 8.75, 95% confidence interval 1.21,64.11). Considered per entry site, the incidence of occlusion was 7 of 22 with one lead present, 17 of 61 with two leads, 0 of 11 with three leads, and 0 of 1 with four leads (P = 0.13). No patient had a superior vena caval occlusion. Patients with systemic infection have an increased risk of occlusion of the access vein. On the contrary, the study found no support for the concept that the risk of venous occlusion increases with a higher number of leads present. (PACE 2003; 26:1649,1652) [source]

Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2002
DIDIER KLUG
KLUG, D., et al.: Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach. Femoral approach pacemaker lead extraction is described as a safe and efficacious procedure. When the lead can not be removed from its myocardial insertion, the "Needle's eye snare" has become available, and it allows a femoral approach traction associated with a countertraction . Between May 1998 and May 2000, 222 lead extraction procedures were performed in 99 patients using the femoral approach. This article reports the results of the 70 lead extractions requiring the use of the Needle's eye snare for femoral approach countertraction in 39 patients with a total of 82 leads. The indications were infection, accufix leads and lead dysfunction in 56, 1 and 6 leads, respectively. The age of the leads was 113 ± 56 months. Sixty-one (87.2%) leads were successfully extracted, the extraction was incomplete in 3 (4.3%) cases and failed in 6 (8.5%) cases. The failures were due to leads totally excluded from the venous flow for four leads, the impossibility of advancing the 16 Fr long sheath through the right and left iliac veins for one lead and one traction induced a nontolerated ventricular arrhythmia. In these cases, an extraction by a simple upper traction had been attempted in another center several months before. The complications included two deaths and one transient ischemia of the right inferior limb. Despite the selection of a series of leads for which an extraction by a simple traction on the proximal end of the lead was impossible or unsuccessful, femoral countertraction seems to be a safe and efficacious procedure. The failure of this technique occurred in patients with damaged leads due to a previous extraction procedure performed in centers with limited experience in lead extraction. [source]

Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2001
ANTONIS S. MANOLIS
MANOLIS, A.S., et al.: Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System. A previous report described our preliminary experience with a highly successful pacing lead removal system (VascoExtor). Extending this experience, we found it necessary to use additional tools to enhance the success of percutaneous lead extraction with this system. In the present series, we used the standard locking stylets (S and K), and recently, one newer type of stylet (Magic) over the last 3 years in 34 patients to extract 48 pacemaker leads in 31 patients and 3 defibrillator (ICD) leads in 3 patients. Lead extraction was carried out in 23 men and 11 women (aged 64 ± 17 years) because of pacemaker infection (n = 21), pacemaker (n = 8) or ICD (n = 3) lead malfunction, or prior to ICD implant (n = 2). Leads were in place for 3.5 ± 3.7 years. Infections, involving pocket and lead(s), were due to S. epidermidis (n = 13), S. aureus (n = 6), S. aureus plus E. coli (n = 1), or fungi (n = 1). Of the 48 pacing leads, 31 were ventricular, 15 atrial, and 2 were VDD leads. The ICD leads were two double-coil leads (CPI) and one single-coil lead (Telectronics). Using the S (n = 12), K (n = 8), or Magic (n = 3) stylets, all pacing leads in 23 patients and the ICD leads in 2 patients were successfully removed from a subclavian approach using the locking stylets. However, in nine (26.5%) patients ancillary tools were required. In four patients, lead fragments were captured with use of a noose catheter, a pigtail catheter, and a bioptome from a right femoral approach. In two patients, locking could not be effected and a noose catheter from the right femoral vein was used, aided by a pigtail and an Amplatz catheter and a bioptome to remove three leads. In a patient with an ICD lead, a combined subclavian (stylet S) and right femoral approach (noose catheter) was required. In a patient with a dysfunctional ventricular lead 12 years old, a motor drive unit was used to facilitate the exchange of locking stylets, but extraction failed. In another patient, a fragment of a dysfunctional ventricular lead remained intravascularly despite resorting to a femoral approach. Finally, lead removal was completely (32/34, 94%) or partially (1/34, 3%) successful in 33 (97%) of 34 patients for 50 (98%) of 51 leads without complications. In conclusion, to enhance the success of pacing or ICD lead extraction with use of the VascoExtor locking stylets, an array of ancillary tools were required in more than one fourth of patients. [source]

Subcutaneous Array to Transvenous Proximal Coil Defibrillation as a Solution to High Defibrillation Thresholds with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Distal Coil Failure

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2003
BOAZ AVITALL, Ph.D.
Implantation of a subcutaneous array to improve the defibrillation threshold of an existing transvenous defibrillation lead system without the need for lead extraction is discussed.(J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. 314-315, March 2003) [source]

A Survey of the Practice of Lead Extraction in the United States

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2010
CHARLES A. HENRIKSON M.D.
Background:,Endovascular lead extraction is an important component of the management of patients with chronically implanted arrhythmia control devices. Although it is associated with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality, there is little information about its scope and practice. Methods:,We surveyed 1,000 physician members of the Heart Rhythm Society via e-mail solicitation. Results:,Of the 252 respondents (25%), 221 (88%) reported either performing extractions themselves (63%), or having privileges at a hospital where extractions are performed (25%). Electrophysiologists perform extractions at most sites (83%) but cardiac surgeons perform endovascular lead extraction at a significant minority of sites (20%). Most respondents report low annual volumes of extractions at their site: 15% reported <10 procedures/year, 42% 10,25 procedures/year, 23% 26,50 procedure/year, and only 19% reported >50 procedures/year. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported that extractions were done in the operating room (OR) with surgeon present or immediately available, 39% in the electrophysiology (EP) lab with surgeon and OR identified and available, and 25% in EP lab without a surgeon or OR identified. The overall risks of lead extraction were felt to be 1,5% of major complication and 0.5,1% of mortality, roughly in line with published data. Conclusions:,While there is agreement as to the risk of major complication and death from lead extraction, the degree of surgical availability varies considerably. The new guidelines document recommends the ability to promptly initiate an emergent surgical procedure, and this should be an important goal for all extractionists. (PACE 2010; 33:721,726) [source]

Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction: Predictors of Mortality during Follow-Up

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2010
SHOAIB HAMID M.D.
Background:Extraction of cardiac implantable electric devices is an accepted procedure when systems become infected or malfunction. However, there is an associated morbidity and mortality. We report our 5-year experience and identify predictors of mortality, and long-term follow-up. Methods:We analyzed extraction data from January 2003 to November 2007. Extraction methods used were: locking stylets, telescoping sheaths ± laser, and femoral work stations. Results:One hundred and eighty-three cases were referred, aged 65 ± 16 years (range 28,83); 76% were males. Mean implant time was 75 months (range 4,312 months) and indications were: pocket infection (48%), nonfunctioning lead (22%), erosion through skin (18%), endocarditis/septicemia (11%), bilateral superior vena cava thrombosis (0.5%), and painful lead (0.5%). The number of leads extracted were 369, with complete removal in 90.7% and partial in 7.6%. There were no intraoperative deaths but five (2.7%) died within the same admission as their extraction from overwhelming sepsis. Twelve deaths (6.6%) occurred during an average follow-up of 965 days (range 40,1670). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that C-reactive protein preprocedure was predictive of acute in-hospital mortality. Conclusions:Intravascular lead extraction is a safe and efficient method of removing leads. However, there is a subgroup of patients with systemic sepsis with raised inflammatory markers who are at high risk of in-hospital mortality. Long-term follow-up demonstrates mortality which is a marker of the underlying etiology for device implantation, with heart failure patients particularly at risk. (PACE 2010; 33:209,216) [source]

Initial Experience of Pacing with a Lumenless Lead System in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 11 2009
SANTABHANU CHAKRABARTI M.D.
Background: Long-term pacing is frequently necessary in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Preservation of ventricular function and avoidance of venous occlusion is important in these patients. Site-selective pacing with a smaller diameter lead is achievable with the model 3830 lead (SelectSecure®, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), which was specifically designed to target these complications. We describe our initial experience with the Model 3830 lead in patients with CHD. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing site-selective implantation of a Model 3830 lead(s) from two congenital heart centers (Bristol, UK, and Dublin, Ireland) from October 2004 until February 2008. Results: We implanted 139 SelectSecure® leads (atrial n = 70; ventricular n = 69) in 90 patients (57 male) with CHD. Median age at implantation: 13.4 years (1.1,59.2 years), median weight: 43 kg. Sixty-nine patients (76%) were children (<18 years). Indications for lead implantation included atrioventricular block (n = 55), sinus node disease (n = 18), implantable cardiac defibrillator (n = 12), antitachycardia pacing (n = 4), and cardiac resynchronization (n = 1). Twenty-two patients underwent pre-existing lead extraction during the same procedure. All the attempted procedures resulted in successful pacing. One patient had a significantly raised threshold at implantation. There was no procedural mortality. There were two procedural complications. Three patients required lead repositioning for increasing thresholds early postprocedure (<6 weeks). Four leads (2.9%) had displaced on median follow-up of 21.8 months (0.5,42 months). Conclusions: The Model 3830 lead is safe and effective in patients with CHD. This is a technically challenging patient group yet procedural complication and lead displacement rates are acceptable. [source]

Achieving Permanent Left Ventricular Pacing,Options and Choice

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 11 2009
ERNEST W. LAU M.D.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) requires permanent left ventricular (LV) pacing. Coronary sinus (CS) lead placement is the first line clinical approach but can be difficult or impossible; may suffer from a high LV pacing threshold, phrenic nerve stimulation, and dislodgement; and produces epicardial LV pacing, which is less physiological and hemodynamically effective and potentially more proarrhythmic than endocardial LV pacing. CS leads can usually be extracted with direct traction but may require use of extraction sheaths. Half of CS side branches previously used for lead placement may be unusable for the same purpose after successful lead extraction, and 30% of CS lead reimplantation attempts may fail due to exhaustion of side branches. Surgical epicardial LV lead placement is the more invasive second line approach, produces epicardial LV pacing, and has a lead failure rate of ,15% in 5 years. Transseptal endocardial LV lead placement is the third line approach, can be difficult to achieve, but produces endocardial LV pacing. The major concern with transseptal endocardial LV leads is systemic thromboembolism, but the risk is unknown and oral anticoagulation is advised. Among the new CRT recipients in the United States and Western Europe between 2003 and 2007, 22,798 patients may require CS lead revisions, 9,119 patients may have no usable side branches for CS lead replacement, and 1,800 patients may require surgical epicardial LV lead revision in the next 5 years. The CRT community should actively explore and develop alternative approaches to LV pacing to meet this anticipated clinical demand. [source]

Transfemoral Snaring and Stabilization of Pacemaker and Defibrillator Leads to Maintain Vascular Access During Lead Extraction

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2009
AVI FISCHER M.D.
Background: Lead extraction is an effective method for removing pacemaker and defibrillator leads and to obtain venous access when central veins are occluded. Objective: We report a series of patients who required lead extraction and preservation of vascular access requiring a vascular snare introduced from the femoral vein to provide traction on the lead. This technique allowed advancement of the extraction sheath beyond the level of vascular occlusion, preserving vascular access in all patients. Methods: All patients had peripheral contrast venography performed immediately prior to the procedure to identify the site(s) of venous occlusion. An extraction sheath was employed and with direct manual traction, the lead tip pulled free from the myocardial surface prior to advancement of the sheath beyond the occlusion. A transfemoral snare was used to grasp the distal portion of the lead and traction was used to immobilize the lead. Results: In all patients, transfemoral snaring of the leads was necessary to allow safe advancement of a sheath to open the occluded venous system. There were no complications in any of the patients. Conclusion: Our series demonstrates the simple and safe technique of transfemoral lead snaring to assist lead extraction and maintain vascular access in the setting of venous occlusion, when the distal lead tip pulls free of the myocardium before an extraction sheath is passed beyond the point of venous obstruction. [source]

Laser Lead Extraction: Predictors of Success and Complications

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROUX M.D.
Background: Paralleling the rise in pacemaker and defibrillator implantations, lead extraction procedures are increasingly required. Concerns regarding failure and complications remain. Methods and Results: A total of 200 lead extraction procudures were performed at the Montreal Heart Institute between September 2000 and August 2005. In 23 patients, all leads were removed by traction with a locking stylet. A total of 270 leads were extracted using a laser sheath system (Spectranectics, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) in 177 procedures involving 175 patients (74% male), age 62±16 years. Procedural indications were: infection 88 (50%), dysfunction 54 (30%), upgrade 21 (12%), and other 14 (8%). Overall, 241 leads (89%) were successfully extracted, 7 (3%) were partially extracted (,4 cm retained), and 22 (8%) were non-extractable. In multivariate analyses, predictors of failed extraction were longer time from implant (OR 1.16 per year, P=0.0001) and history of hypertension (OR 5.2, P=0.0023). Acute complications occurred in 14 of 177 procedures (7.9%): 8 (4.5%) minor and 6 (3.4%) major, with one death. In multivariate analyses, the only predictor of acute complications was laser lead extraction from both right and left sides during the same procedure (OR 9.4, P = 0.0119). In addition, 3 of 10 patients with failed or partially extracted infected systems eventually required open chest explantation because of endocarditis. Conclusion: Most leads not amenable to manual traction may be successfully extracted by a percutaneous laser sheath system. While most complications are minor, major complications including death may occur. Older leads are at higher risk for failed extraction. Endocarditis may ensue if infected leads are incompletely removed. [source]

Extraction of the Inner Coil of a Pacemaker Lead Slid into the Pulmonary Artery

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
F.E.S.C., PIER GIORGIO GOLZIO M.D.
A patient required lead extraction for chronic draining sinus, due to abandoned leads. Preoperatively, the chest film showed a filament in the right pulmonary artery: it was the inner coil of an old atrial lead that, while remaining anchored to the auricle, slid outside the outer coil. By right subclavian approach, the old ventricular lead and the outer coil of the atrial lead were removed. Then, by right jugular approach, the freely floating end of theinner atrial coil was grasped by a pig-tail catheter, drawn back into the superior vena cava, exteriorized by a Lasso catheter, and finally extracted. [source]

Venous Occlusion of the Access Vein in Patients Referred for Lead Extraction:

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 8 2003
Influence of Patient, Lead Characteristics
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of patient and lead characteristics on occlusion of the access vein in pacemaker and ICD patients. Contrast venography of the access vein was obtained in 89 patients (17 patients with an ICD) scheduled for lead extraction. The indication for extraction was infection in 57 patients (systemic infection in 9) and lead malfunction in 32 patients. In 6 of the 89 patients, leads were introduced in both the right and left subpectoral area, resulting in a total of 95 venous entry sites. In 22 of these entry sites one lead was present, in 61 two leads, in 11 three, and in 1 four leads. The vessel patency was graded open or occluded. Occlusion of the subclavian vein occurred in four (13%) patients with lead malfunction versus 18 (32%) patients with infection (P = 0.07). In patients with systemic infection, 5 of 9 showed venous occlusion (P = 0.01 when compared to patients with malfunction, odds ratio 8.75, 95% confidence interval 1.21,64.11). Considered per entry site, the incidence of occlusion was 7 of 22 with one lead present, 17 of 61 with two leads, 0 of 11 with three leads, and 0 of 1 with four leads (P = 0.13). No patient had a superior vena caval occlusion. Patients with systemic infection have an increased risk of occlusion of the access vein. On the contrary, the study found no support for the concept that the risk of venous occlusion increases with a higher number of leads present. (PACE 2003; 26:1649,1652) [source]

Pacemaker Lead Infection in Young Patients

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7p1 2003
DIDIER KLUG
Transvenous pacing has become widespread in the pediatric population, but related pacemaker lead infection in young patients has rarely been reported. To determine prevalence and optimal management of pacemaker lead infection in children and young adults, the authors reviewed their pacing database including 4,476 patients who previously had pacemaker implantations from 1975 to 2001. A pacemaker was implanted in 304 patients under the age of 40. Of these patients 217 of them had congenital heart disease: 108 with structural defect, 109 without (mainly complete AV blocks). Among patients with congenital heart disease, 12 developed a pacemaker lead infection (5.5%, 6 patients with structural defect, 6 without). This incidence was significantly higher than in patients < 40 years at first implantation without congenital heart disease (2.3%) and in > 40-year-old patients(1.2%, P < 0.001). However, the number of reinterventions at the pulse generator site was higher in patients having had their first implantation before the age of 40. In patients with structural cardiac defect: two died after surgical lead extraction and one died before the scheduled lead extraction. The three remaining patients had successful surgical (n = 1) or percutaneous (n = 2) lead extractions. In patients without structural cardiac defect successful percutaneous extraction (5/6) or surgical extraction (1/6 with vegetation > 25 mm) was performed. One patient with percutaneous extraction developed chronic cor pulmonale during follow-up. One infection recurred in one patient with structural cardiac defect although complete removal of the pacing material had been performed. The prevalence of pacemaker lead infection is higher in younger patients, perhaps in part due to a higher number of procedures at the pacemaker site than in the general population of patients with a pacemaker. Patients with structural cardiac defect who underwent surgical lead removal were at high risk for death. Patients with percutaneous lead extraction may develop cor pulmonale. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. I]:1489,1493) [source]

Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2002
DIDIER KLUG
KLUG, D., et al.: Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach. Femoral approach pacemaker lead extraction is described as a safe and efficacious procedure. When the lead can not be removed from its myocardial insertion, the "Needle's eye snare" has become available, and it allows a femoral approach traction associated with a countertraction . Between May 1998 and May 2000, 222 lead extraction procedures were performed in 99 patients using the femoral approach. This article reports the results of the 70 lead extractions requiring the use of the Needle's eye snare for femoral approach countertraction in 39 patients with a total of 82 leads. The indications were infection, accufix leads and lead dysfunction in 56, 1 and 6 leads, respectively. The age of the leads was 113 ± 56 months. Sixty-one (87.2%) leads were successfully extracted, the extraction was incomplete in 3 (4.3%) cases and failed in 6 (8.5%) cases. The failures were due to leads totally excluded from the venous flow for four leads, the impossibility of advancing the 16 Fr long sheath through the right and left iliac veins for one lead and one traction induced a nontolerated ventricular arrhythmia. In these cases, an extraction by a simple upper traction had been attempted in another center several months before. The complications included two deaths and one transient ischemia of the right inferior limb. Despite the selection of a series of leads for which an extraction by a simple traction on the proximal end of the lead was impossible or unsuccessful, femoral countertraction seems to be a safe and efficacious procedure. The failure of this technique occurred in patients with damaged leads due to a previous extraction procedure performed in centers with limited experience in lead extraction. [source]

Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2001
ANTONIS S. MANOLIS
MANOLIS, A.S., et al.: Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System. A previous report described our preliminary experience with a highly successful pacing lead removal system (VascoExtor). Extending this experience, we found it necessary to use additional tools to enhance the success of percutaneous lead extraction with this system. In the present series, we used the standard locking stylets (S and K), and recently, one newer type of stylet (Magic) over the last 3 years in 34 patients to extract 48 pacemaker leads in 31 patients and 3 defibrillator (ICD) leads in 3 patients. Lead extraction was carried out in 23 men and 11 women (aged 64 ± 17 years) because of pacemaker infection (n = 21), pacemaker (n = 8) or ICD (n = 3) lead malfunction, or prior to ICD implant (n = 2). Leads were in place for 3.5 ± 3.7 years. Infections, involving pocket and lead(s), were due to S. epidermidis (n = 13), S. aureus (n = 6), S. aureus plus E. coli (n = 1), or fungi (n = 1). Of the 48 pacing leads, 31 were ventricular, 15 atrial, and 2 were VDD leads. The ICD leads were two double-coil leads (CPI) and one single-coil lead (Telectronics). Using the S (n = 12), K (n = 8), or Magic (n = 3) stylets, all pacing leads in 23 patients and the ICD leads in 2 patients were successfully removed from a subclavian approach using the locking stylets. However, in nine (26.5%) patients ancillary tools were required. In four patients, lead fragments were captured with use of a noose catheter, a pigtail catheter, and a bioptome from a right femoral approach. In two patients, locking could not be effected and a noose catheter from the right femoral vein was used, aided by a pigtail and an Amplatz catheter and a bioptome to remove three leads. In a patient with an ICD lead, a combined subclavian (stylet S) and right femoral approach (noose catheter) was required. In a patient with a dysfunctional ventricular lead 12 years old, a motor drive unit was used to facilitate the exchange of locking stylets, but extraction failed. In another patient, a fragment of a dysfunctional ventricular lead remained intravascularly despite resorting to a femoral approach. Finally, lead removal was completely (32/34, 94%) or partially (1/34, 3%) successful in 33 (97%) of 34 patients for 50 (98%) of 51 leads without complications. In conclusion, to enhance the success of pacing or ICD lead extraction with use of the VascoExtor locking stylets, an array of ancillary tools were required in more than one fourth of patients. [source]

Diagnosis and Management of Inadvertently Placed Pacing and ICD Leads in the Left Ventricle: A Multicenter Experience and Review of the Literature

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
BERRY M. VAN GELDER
Three patients from different centers with pacemaker or ICD leads endocardially implanted in the left ventricle are described. All leads, two ventricular pacing leads and one ICD lead, were inserted through a patent foramen ovale or an atrial septum defect. The diagnosis was made 9 months. 14 months, and 16 years, respectively, after implantation. All patients had right bundle branch block configuration during ventricular pacing. Chest X ray was suggestive of a left-sided positioned lead except in the ICD patient. Diagnosis was confirmed with echocardiography in all patients. One patient with a ventricular pacing lead presented with a transient ischcmic attack at 1-month postimplantation. During surgical repair of the atrial septum defect 14 months later, the lead was extracted and thrombus was attached to the lead despite therapy with aspirin. The other patients were asymptomatic without anticoagulation (9 months and 16 years after implant). No thrombus was present on the ICD lead at the time of the cardiac transplantation in one patient. We reviewed 27 patients with permanent leads described in the literature. Ten patients experienced thromboembolic complications, including three of ten patients on antiplatelet therapy. The lead was removed in six patients, anticoagulation with warfarin was effective for secondary prevention in the four remaining patients. In the asymptomatic patients, the lead was removed in five patients. In the remaining patients, 1 patient was on warfarin, 2 were on antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 patients the medication was unknown. After malposition was diagnosed, three additional patients were treated with warfarin. In conclusion, if timely removal of a malpositioned lead in the left ventricle is not preformed, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin can be recommended as the first choice therapy and lead extraction reserved in case of failure or during concomitant surgery. [source]

Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2002
DIDIER KLUG
KLUG, D., et al.: Pacemaker Lead Extraction with the Needle's Eye Snare for Countertraction via a Femoral Approach. Femoral approach pacemaker lead extraction is described as a safe and efficacious procedure. When the lead can not be removed from its myocardial insertion, the "Needle's eye snare" has become available, and it allows a femoral approach traction associated with a countertraction . Between May 1998 and May 2000, 222 lead extraction procedures were performed in 99 patients using the femoral approach. This article reports the results of the 70 lead extractions requiring the use of the Needle's eye snare for femoral approach countertraction in 39 patients with a total of 82 leads. The indications were infection, accufix leads and lead dysfunction in 56, 1 and 6 leads, respectively. The age of the leads was 113 ± 56 months. Sixty-one (87.2%) leads were successfully extracted, the extraction was incomplete in 3 (4.3%) cases and failed in 6 (8.5%) cases. The failures were due to leads totally excluded from the venous flow for four leads, the impossibility of advancing the 16 Fr long sheath through the right and left iliac veins for one lead and one traction induced a nontolerated ventricular arrhythmia. In these cases, an extraction by a simple upper traction had been attempted in another center several months before. The complications included two deaths and one transient ischemia of the right inferior limb. Despite the selection of a series of leads for which an extraction by a simple traction on the proximal end of the lead was impossible or unsuccessful, femoral countertraction seems to be a safe and efficacious procedure. The failure of this technique occurred in patients with damaged leads due to a previous extraction procedure performed in centers with limited experience in lead extraction. [source]