IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14184-d957936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years—A Large Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Andrzej Kutarski

    (Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland)

  • Andrzej Głowniak

    (Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland)

  • Jarosław Kosior

    (Department of Cardiology, Masovian Specialist Hospital in Radom, 20-617 Radom, Poland)

  • Wojciech Jacheć

    (2nd Department of Cardiology, Silesian Medical University, 41-808 Zabrze, Poland)

  • Dorota Nowosielecka

    (Department of Cardiology, Pope John Paul II Hospital of Zamość, 22-400 Zamość, Poland)

  • Marek Czajkowski

    (Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland)

  • Anna Polewczyk

    (Department of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Clinical Immunology, Collegium Medicum of Jan Kochanowski University, 25-317 Kielce, Poland
    Department of Cardiac Surgery, Świętokrzyskie Cardiology Center, 25-736 Kielce, Poland)

Abstract

Background: There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old. Methods: Retrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10–20 years, 20–30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old). Results: Rate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3–6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium—from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage—from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery—from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10–20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20–30 years—14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years—20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads. Conclusions: 1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrzej Kutarski & Andrzej Głowniak & Jarosław Kosior & Wojciech Jacheć & Dorota Nowosielecka & Marek Czajkowski & Anna Polewczyk, 2022. "Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years—A Large Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14184-:d:957936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14184-:d:957936. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.