IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p12542-d931198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance

Author

Listed:
  • Dorota Nowosielecka

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

  • Wojciech Jacheć

    (2nd Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Silesian Medical University, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland)

  • Anna Polewczyk

    (Institute of Medical Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University, 25-369 Kielce, Poland
    Department of Cardiac Surgery, Świętokrzyskie Cardiology Center, 25-736 Kielce, Poland)

  • Łukasz Tułecki

    (Department of Cardiac Surgery, The Pope John Paul II Province Hospital, 22-400 Zamość, Poland)

  • Paweł Stefańczyk

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

  • Andrzej Kutarski

    (Department of Cardiology, Medical University, 20-059 Lublin, Poland)

Abstract

“Ghosts” are fibrinous remnants that become visible during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: Data from transoesophageal echocardiography-guided TLE procedures performed in 1103 patients were analysed to identify predisposing risk factors for the development of so-called disappearing ghosts—flying ghosts (FG), or attached to the cardiovascular wall—stable ghosts (SG), and to find out whether the presence of ghosts affected patient prognosis after TLE. Results: Ghosts were detected in 44.67% of patients (FG 15.5%, SG 29.2%). The occurrence of ghosts was associated with patient age at first system implantation [FG (OR = 0.984; p = 0.019), SG (OR = 0.989; p = 0.030)], scar tissue around the lead (s) [FG (OR = 7.106; p < 0.001, OR = 1.372; p = 0.011), SG (OR = 1.940; p < 0.001)], adherence of the lead to the cardiovascular wall [FG (OR = 0.517; p = 0.034)] and the number of leads [SG (OR = 1.450; p < 0.002). The presence of ghosts had no impact on long-term survival after TLE in the whole study group [FG HR = 0.927, 95% CI (0.742–1.159); p = 0.505; SG HR = 0.845, 95% CI (0.638–1.132); p = 0.265]. Conclusions: The degree of growth and maturation of scar tissue surrounding the lead was the strongest factor leading to the development of both types of ghosts. The presence of either form of ghost did not affect long-term survival even after TLE indicated for infection.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorota Nowosielecka & Wojciech Jacheć & Anna Polewczyk & Łukasz Tułecki & Paweł Stefańczyk & Andrzej Kutarski, 2022. "“Ghost”, a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12542-:d:931198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12542/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12542/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorota Nowosielecka & Wojciech Jacheć & Anna Polewczyk & Łukasz Tułecki & Andrzej Kleinrok & Andrzej Kutarski, 2021. "Prognostic Value of Preoperative Echocardiographic Findings in Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-20, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul-Mihai Boarescu & Iulia Diana Popa & Cătălin Aurelian Trifan & Adela Nicoleta Roşian & Ştefan Horia Roşian, 2022. "Practical Approaches to Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures—Clinical Case Series," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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:19:p:12542-:d:931198. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.