Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker/Defibrillator Leads—A Single-Center Experience

TL;DR

This study shares a hospital's experience with safely removing old heart devices through a minimally invasive method, showing high success rates and manageable risks.

Contribution

The paper provides a detailed single-center analysis of transvenous lead extraction outcomes and complications.

Findings

The most common reason for lead extraction was pocket infection, followed by lead dysfunction and system upgrade.

The manual traction method achieved a high procedural success rate despite long lead dwell times.

Major and minor complications occurred in 11% and 6.5% of patients, respectively.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The number of cardiac pacemakers being used has increased in recent decades, and this increase has led to a rise in device-related complications, requiring percutaneous device extraction. Our aim was to present our single-center clinical experience in percutaneous lead extractions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed an observational retrospective cohort study of 93 patients for the transvenous removal of a total of 163 endocardial leads. We evaluated the device details, indications, lead characteristics, extraction methods, complications, reimplantation procedure, follow-up data, effectiveness, and safety. Results: Patients’ mean age was 68.6 ± 11.6 years. Lead extraction indications were pocket infection in 33 (35.5%), lead dysfunction in 33 (35.5%), and system upgrade in 21 (23%) cases, and lead endocarditis in 6 (6%) cases. The duration from implantation to extraction time was a detected median of 43 (24–87) months. The most common retracted lead type was the RV defibrillator lead (62%), and the lead fixation type was active for one hundred (61%) patients. A new device was inserted in 74 (80%) patients, and the device type was most commonly a CRT-D (61%). Patients were followed up at a median of 17 (8–36) months, and 18 patients (19%) died at follow-up. Complete procedural success was obtained in 78 (84%) patients, and clinical procedural success was obtained in 83 (89%) patients. Procedural failure was detected in 15 (16%) patients. Major and minor complications were detected in 10 (11%) and 6 (6.5%) patients, respectively. The most common minor complication was pocket hematoma. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that transvenous lead extraction has a high success rate with an acceptable risk of procedural complications. The simple manual traction method has a high rate of procedural success, despite a high dwell time of the lead.

Figures