# Risk stratification in transvenous lead extraction: Current models and clinical applications

**Authors:** Alphonsus C. Liew, Vishal Mehta, Nadeev Wijesuriya, Sandra Howell, Felicity de Vere, Steven Niederer, Christopher Aldo Rinaldi

PMC · DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2025.10.016 · Heart Rhythm O2 · 2025-11-04

## TL;DR

This paper reviews risk prediction tools for transvenous lead extraction to help improve procedural planning and patient outcomes.

## Contribution

The paper provides a comparative summary and practical recommendations for existing risk prediction tools in transvenous lead extraction.

## Key findings

- Several risk prediction tools have been proposed to assess procedural and postprocedural risks.
- Risk stratification helps determine procedural setting, tools, and patient discussions.
- Using these tools can improve procedural preparation and reduce mortality.

## Abstract

Transvenous lead extractions have been increasingly performed in the last decade, in line with the rise in cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Contemporary transvenous lead extraction registries have demonstrated high procedural success rates and low major complication and mortality rates. However, procedural risk remains highly variable and is dependent on several factors. This highlights the importance of risk stratification to facilitate adequate procedural planning including procedural setting (operating room, hybrid laboratory, or device laboratory), presence of surgical backup, and tools (simple mechanical vs powered sheaths) required. Furthermore, risk stratification allows for upfront decisions to be made regarding lead management (extraction or abandonment) and frank discussions to be had with patients regarding the risk of serious complications and the probability of procedural success. To date, several risk prediction tools have been mooted to predict procedural and/or postprocedural risk, as well as procedural difficulty and need for advanced techniques or tools. In this review, we will summarize and compare the different risk prediction tools available. We will provide practical recommendations on the use of risk prediction tools to improve procedural preparation and minimize mortality from procedural complications.

## Full-text entities

- **Genes:** CYBC1 (cytochrome b-245 chaperone 1) [NCBI Gene 79415] {aka C17orf62, CGD5, Eros}
- **Diseases:** ICD (MESH:D057873), Chronic heart failure (MESH:D006333), kidney dysfunction (MESH:D007674), bleeding (MESH:D006470), tricuspid regurgitation (MESH:D014262), cardiac or vascular perforation (MESH:D057112), stroke (MESH:D020521), Heart (MESH:D006331), erythema (MESH:D004890), pericardial effusion (MESH:D010490), myocardial tear (MESH:D012167), Sepsis (MESH:D018805), infectious (MESH:D003141), pocket (MESH:D005888), vegetation (MESH:D018458), anemia (MESH:D000740), PPM lead (MESH:D007855), fibrosis (MESH:D005355), tricuspid valve injury (MESH:D014264), death (MESH:D003643), adhesions (MESH:D000267), hemothorax (MESH:D006491), EROS 2 (MESH:D011248), infection (MESH:D007239), end-stage renal disease (MESH:D007676), diabetes (MESH:D003920), pneumothorax (MESH:D011030), SVC (MESH:D013479), vascular (MESH:D057772), Chronic kidney disease (MESH:D051436), Congenital heart disease (MESH:D006330), atrioventricular block (MESH:D054537), blood loss (MESH:D016063)
- **Chemicals:** lead (MESH:D007854), creatinine (MESH:D003404), implantable (-)
- **Species:** Pseudomonas aeruginosa (species) [taxon 287], Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]
- **Mutations:** P01268X

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12925754/full.md

## Figures

5 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12925754/full.md

## References

40 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12925754/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12925754