4.1 Article

Intracardiac echocardiography in patients with pacing and defibrillating leads: A feasibility study

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2008.00656.x

关键词

intracardiac echocardiography; cardiac leads; fibrous adherences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lead extraction, an important and necessary component of treatment for many common device and lead-related complications, is a procedure that can provoke much anxiety in even the most experienced operators given the potentially serious complications. The principal impediment to lead extraction is the body's response to an intravascular foreign body with matrix intravascular neoformation, which causes the lead to adhere to the endocardium or vascular structure, increasing the risk of vascular or myocardial damage with lead removal. Fluoroscopic visualization, the commonly visualization used tool, has several limits in terms of anatomical structures visualization. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in patients undergoing pacing and defibrillating leads before and during a transvenous device removal, and its potential role in detecting intracardiac leads and areas of fibrous adherence. Methods: ICE interrogation was performed in 25 consecutive patients with pacing and defibrillating implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) leads before and during device removal. Results: A programmed ICE analysis was completed in 23 out of 25 patients with excellent resolution, providing a qualitative-quantitative information on anatomical structures, cardiac leads, and related areas of fibrous adherence. No ICE-related complications occurred. Conclusions: ICE evaluation is safe and feasible in patients with pacing and defibrillating leads before and during transvenous lead removal, offering an excellent visualization of cardiac leads and related areas of adherence. ICE can assist pacing and ICD lead removal and could improve procedure efficacy and safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据