Journal
HEART RHYTHM
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages 855-859Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.01.018
Keywords
Abandoned lead; Device infection; Femoral extraction; Laser extraction; Lead extraction
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND The decision to abandon or extract superfluous sterile leads is controversial. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare procedural outcomes and long-term survival of patients with and those without abandoned leads undergoing lead extraction (LE). METHODS Retrospective review of all patients who had undergone transvenous LE at our institution from January 2007 to May 2016 was performed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of abandoned leads. < p > RESULTS Among 774 patients who had undergone LE procedures, 38 (4.9%) had abandoned leads (group 1). Dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was longer in group 1 vs group 2 (7.6 +/- 4.9 years vs 5.6 +/- 4.4 years; P = .017), as was infection as an indication for LE (76% vs 33%; P <.001). A bailout femoral approach was more commonly required in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs 6%; P = .007). Complete procedural success rates were similar (92.1% CONCLUSION Abandoned leads at the time of LE were associated with increased procedural complexity, including a higher rate of bailout femoral extraction, and may be associated with lower clinical success. Among appropriately selected patients, consideration should be given to LE instead of abandonment.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available