Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures
1
Department of Cardiology, Medical University, 20-059 Lublin, Poland
2
2nd Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland
3
Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, The Jan Kochanowski University, 25-369 Kielce, Poland
4
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Świętokrzyskie Center of Cardiology, 25-736 Kielce, Poland
5
Department of Cardiology, The Pope John Paul II Province Hospital, 22-400 Zamość, Poland
6
Department of Cardiac Surgery, The Pope John Paul II Province Hospital, 22-400 Zamość, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(8), 2837; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082837
Submission received: 21 February 2023
/
Revised: 27 March 2023
/
Accepted: 11 April 2023
/
Published: 13 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Abstract
:Background: The long-term significance of lead remnants (LR) following transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains disputable, especially in infectious patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3741 TLEs focused on the relationship between LR and procedure complexity, complications and long-term survival. Results: The study group consisted of 156 individuals with LR (4.17%), and the control group consisted of 3585 patients with completely removed lead(s). In a multivariable model, a younger patient age at CIED implantation, more CIED procedures and procedure complexity were independent risk factors for retention of non-removable LR. Although patients with LR showed better survival outcomes following TLE (log rank p = 0.041 for non-infectious group and p = 0.017 for infectious group), multivariable Cox regression analysis did not confirm the prognostic significance of LR either in non-infectious [HR = 0.777; p = 0.262], infectious [HR = 0.983; p = 0.934] or the entire group of patients [HR = 0.858; p = 0.321]. Conclusions: 1. Non-removable LRs are encountered in 4.17% of patients. 2. CIED infection has no influence on retention of LRs, but younger patient age, multiple CIED-related procedures and higher levels of procedure complexity are independent risk factors for the presence of LR. 3. Better survival outcomes following TLE in patients with LRs are not the effects of their presence but younger patient and better health status.
1. Introduction
Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), which plays a critical role in managing patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), is highly effective and safe provided that all safety requirements are met [1,2,3]. The goal of TLE is to remove all targeted leads in their entirety with a minimal risk of major complications [1,2,3]. Fracture of the lead during the removal procedure is not a rare complication (a few percent) [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], but only several papers [12,13,14] and case reports have addressed the strategy of lead fracture management [15,16,17,18,19]. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the predictive role of incomplete lead extraction [20,21,22]. Surprisingly, there are many case reports describing lead fragments that embolize to the pulmonary arteries and the methods of their retrieval [23,24,25,26]. If possible, fragments of the broken lead should be removed [1,2,3,20,21] because they can be a source of persistent or recurrent infection after implantation of a new device [20,21]. Sometimes, the distal part of the fractured lead cannot be grasped with advanced tools as it is encased in dense scar tissue. According to the internationally agreed recommendations [1,2,3], abandonment of any lead fragment precludes procedural success; however, if the retained fragment is shorter than 4 cm (or it is just the tip of the lead), the procedure is deemed clinically successful in patients without infections. There are always doubts as to the practical application of the phrase “that does not negatively impact the outcome goals of the procedure” in infectious patients transferred to distant centres within a few days after TLE. Having a database of 3741 TLE procedures and information on patient deaths since 2006 (from the national vital statistics database), we decided to investigate the effects of retained lead fragments on long-term mortality.
The purpose of the study was to identify prognostic factors for the occurrence of lead remnants (LR) following TLE in an attempt to determine the significance of retained lead fragments in the context of long-term survival after TLE in patients with non-infectious and infectious indications for transvenous lead extraction.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
All transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures performed between March 2006 and July 2022 at three high-volume centres were reviewed. Patient clinical data, CIED and history of pacing, information on extracted leads, procedure complexity, efficacy and outcomes were analysed using our retrospective database. The study population consisted of 3741 patients aged 5–99 years (average age 65.97 years), of which 1425 females (38.09%).
2.2. Lead Extraction Procedure
Indications for lead extraction, procedure effectiveness and complications were established according to the recent guidelines (2009 and 2017 HRS consensus and 2018 EHRA guidelines). The efficacy of TLE was expressed as the percentage of procedural success and clinical success [1,2,3].
Procedure complexity was expressed as extraction time of all leads (sheath-to-sheath time), average time of single lead extraction (sheath-to-sheath/number of extracted leads) and use of second line and advanced tools [27,28,29,30,31]. Unexpected technical problems during TLE, i.e., the situations that increased procedure complexity but caused no complications included fracture of targeted leads [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], loss of broken lead fragments [23,24,25,26], occlusion of lead implant vein in the subclavian region, Byrd dilator collapse/fracture [32], lead-on-lead binding [33], use of alternative venous access [14,33] and dislodgement of functional leads [34].
We used a stepwise approach starting with non-powered mechanical telescoping polypropylene sheaths (Byrd Dilator Sheaths, Cook Medical Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA) of all sizes and lengths. The second-line tools were powered mechanical sheath systems (Evolution Mechanical Dilator Sheaths, Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA; TightRail Mechanical Rotating Dilator Sheaths, Phillips, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) or metal sheaths if the obstacle was near the venous entry site and subclavian region as previously described [13,14,15,16,19].
Standard stylets or locking stylets (Liberator Locking Stylets, Cook Medical Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA) were used, the latter ones for extraction of the oldest leads. Screw-out and simple traction were very rarely used because preserved or re-established venous access was important for implantation of a new or temporary pacing lead [13,14,15,16,19].
2.3. Extraction of Distal Fragments of the Lead
For 16 years it has been our practice to remove remnants of the lead if it was not just the lead tip. Depending on the location of the proximal end, we tried to grab the lead fragment with a lasso or basket catheter using the implant vein or subclavian access re-established after removal of another lead. Access via the jugular or femoral vein was used less frequently. The lasso or basket catheter served as an extension of the fractured lead, and the extraction procedure was continued until the lead was removed. If the distal fragments were unable to be taken out, the procedure was deemed as either a partial radiographic success or having a lack of radiographic success; thus, procedural success was dependent on lead remnant length and infection presence [13,14,15,16,19,26]. This was our working hypothesis that needed to be verified. Laser sheaths were not used.
The organization of lead extraction has evolved from procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory using intravenous analgesia/sedation to procedures in the hybrid room in patients only under general anaesthesia. During the last 7 years, the core extraction team has consisted of the same highly experienced extractor (now frequently serving as a proctor), experienced echocardiographer and dedicated cardiac surgeon [33,35,36].
2.4. Dataset and Statistical Methods
We split the case into subgroups for analysis. First, we looked at all fractures of targeted leads, which occurred in 226 patients (6.04%). Lead remnants were successfully extracted in 70 (1.87%) and remnant length was reduced (to <4 cm) in 27 (0.77%), whereas lead fragments of different lengths remained unretrievable in 117 patients (3.13%). Finally, long lead remnants (>4 cm) were found in 5 (0.13%), short lead remnants (<4 cm) in 67 (1.79%) and the lead tips in 78 (2.08%) patients, whereas 6 (0.16%) extraction procedures were not completed because of the need for emergent or planned cardiac surgery or procedure- or indication-related death in 4 (0.11%) patients. We checked the data in 5 patients with 6–7-cm lead remnants (procedure failure) and found out that 4 were non-infectious and one suffered from infective endocarditis. Four patients are alive, and one died from a non-cardiac cause.
Finally, the lead remnant group consisted of 156 patients (4.17%), including those with short lead remnants (<4 cm)—67 (1.79%), the lead tips—78 (2.08%), long lead fragments (>4 cm)—5 (0.13%), embolization of lead tips into the pulmonary circulation—5 (0.13%) and ungraspable outer silicone lead insulation in SVC in 1 (0.03%) individual. The control group consisted of 3583 patients with complete radiographic success (1132 with and 2453 without CIED infections). Five patient groups were identified: with non-infectious indications (2559), isolated pocket infection (359), infective lead-related endocarditis (823) and an all-infection group and an all-patient group. The groups were subdivided according to the presence or absence of lead remnants: LR(+) or LR(−). In each group, we compared the distribution of variables between the LR(+) and LR(−) subgroups.
The clinical data, indications for lead extraction, pathogen type (Table 1), system and history of pacing, procedure-related risk factors and predictors of major complications (Table 2), as well as procedure complexity, complications, effectiveness and short- and long-term mortality (Table 3) were analysed. For uniformity, all continuous variables are presented as means ± standard deviation. The categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages. The significance of inter-group differences was determined using the nonparametric chi2 test with Yates correction or the unpaired Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate prognostic factors for the occurrence of lead remnants (in the entire cohort and separately in the lead tip group and in the long remnant group). Variables with p-values < 0.05 under univariable analysis were entered into the multivariate model and results with a p-value < 0.05 under multivariable regression were presented (Table 4). To determine the impact of lead fragment retention on survival (except the first 48 h after TLE), Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted and evaluated with the log rank test (Figure 1). Univariable and multivariable Cox models were used to assess the factors influencing the long-term outcomes after TLE. Demographic, clinical and CIED-related data were analysed. Variables with p-values < 0.05 under univariable analysis were entered into the multivariate model and results with a p-value < 0.05 under multivariable regression were presented (Table 5).
A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).
2.5. Approval of the Bioethics Committee
All patients gave their informed written consent to undergo TLE and use anonymous data from their medical records, approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Regional Chamber of Physicians in Lublin no. 288/2018/KB/VII. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.
3. Results
Retention of lead fragments (partial radiographic success) was significantly associated with younger patient age and better general health status (lack of IDD, better LVEF, less frequent heart failure and significantly lower Charlson comorbidity index). The same trend in mean and percentage differences was observed in infectious and non-infectious patients. The study groups did not differ with respect to the main pathogen type, which seemed to have no connection with the presence of lead remnants (Table 1).
It may appear that implantation of ICD and CRT-D devices “protects” against retention of lead fragments following lead extraction; however, this is due to differences in the age of the systems. Such factors as implant duration and the number of procedures before lead extraction, as well as unexpectedly higher values of the PADIT risk score, seem to be the most important predictors of lack of radiographic success after TLE in patients both with and without infections. The current study demonstrates that procedure-related risk factors for major complications and procedure complexity such as the number of extracted leads per patient, extraction of multiple leads, necessity of using alternative venous approach, extraction of abandoned lead(s) and lead dwell time were significantly associated with partial radiographic success in all study groups (Table 2).
Table 3 summarizes the major complications of lead extraction, procedure complexity and long-term survival for prediction of complete radiographic success. Such indicators of procedure complexity as extraction time (indirectly fluoroscopy time), unexpected procedure difficulties (need to change venous approach, fracture of targeted lead, multiple difficulties) and the necessity of using second-line or advanced tools (Evolution or TightRail, metal sheath, femoral approach and lasso catheter/snare/basket catheter) were significantly more likely to be seen in infectious and non-infectious patients with partial procedural success. Major complications of TLE (any), haemopericardium and tricuspid valve damage during TLE (severe) were significantly more common in patients with incomplete lead extraction. This relationship was found in all (infectious and non-infectious) patient groups.
Mortality in the first 48 h was significantly higher in the LR(+) group (3.21% vs. 0.17%; p < 0.001). Surprisingly, long-term mortality during 1948 ± 1381 days of follow-up was lower in the LR(+) groups irrespective of indications for extraction (log rank p = 0.041 for non-infectious patients and log rank p = 0.017 for infectious patients) (Table 3, Figure 1).
Multivariable regression analysis showed that the number of previous CIED-related procedures and the presence of unexpected difficulties during extraction were the predictors of retention of lead fragments following TLE (for all remnants: OR = 1.323; p < 0.001 and OR = 4.909; p < 0.001, respectively). Older patient age at first CIED-related procedure and extraction of ICD lead(s) were associated with a lower probability of LR following TLE (for all remnants: OR = 0.965; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.393; p < 0.001, respectively) (Table 4).
Cox regression survival analysis confirmed the predictive value of conventional risk factors for mortality after TLE, both in the entire cohort and patients classified according to indications for lead extraction. However, we showed no effect of retained fragments on total mortality after TLE, either in the entire cohort or in the subgroups (Table 5).
Results Summary
Partial radiographic success was related to younger patient age and better general health status irrespective of the presence or absence of infection. Long-term mortality after TLE was independent of lead fragment retention both in non-infectious and infectious groups. Cox regression survival analysis confirmed the predictive value of traditional risk factors for mortality after TLE (both in the entire cohort and patients classified according to indications for lead extraction) and showed no influence of retained lead fragments on total mortality after TLE both in the entire cohort and in the study subgroups.
Lead implant duration, the number of procedures before lead extraction and the PADIT risk score proved to be predictors of a lack of radiographic success after TLE in patients with and without infections. Similarly, procedure-related risk factors for major complications and procedure complexity such as the number of extracted leads per patient, extraction of multiple leads, necessity of using alternative approach, extraction of abandoned lead(s) and lead dwell time were significantly associated with partial radiographic success in all study groups. Extraction time, occurrence of unexpected procedure difficulties and the necessity of using second-line or advanced tools were significantly more common in infectious and non-infectious patients with partial procedural success. Major complications of TLE were significantly more likely to occur in patients (infectious and non-infectious) with incomplete lead extraction. The most valuable predictors of incomplete radiographic success were the number of previous CIED-related procedures and the presence of unexpected difficulties during TLE (for all remnants: OR = 1.323; p < 0.001 and OR = 4.909; p < 0.001, respectively). Older patient age at first CIED-related procedure and extraction of ICD lead(s) were associated with lower probability of LR after TLE (for all remnants: OR = 0.965; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.393; p < 0.001, respectively).
4. Discussion
A considerable number of reports have been published on long-term survival following transvenous lead extraction [10,20,21,22,25,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Particularly unsatisfactory results have been reported in patients with CIED infections despite treatment in accordance with guideline recommendations [1,2,3], with mortality being 20% in the first year, 35% at 3 years and even 40–45% at five years [20,21,25,41,42,43,44,45].
The main risk factors can be classified into several categories: patient-dependent factors (heart failure, AF, low EF) [20,37,41,45], comorbidity-dependent factors (diabetes, renal failure) [20,38,39,41,42], infection-dependent factors (any infection, systemic infection, valve endocarditis, vegetations, large vegetations, vegetation remnants after TLE, MRSA infection, thrombocytopenia, anaemia) [10,25,37,38,39,40,41,43,45], CIED-related factors (any CRT infection, lead number, CRT-p infection) [37,41,42,43] and extraction-related factors (removal of multiple leads, lack of clinical success, major and minor extraction complications, presence of ghosts after TLE, retained lead fragments) [20,21,22,39,42,43,44].
The effects of most risk factors are obvious and most of them are beyond our control at the time of lead extraction [10,25,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. The importance of retained lead fragments in patients with infections has been subject to discussion [20,21,22,45]. The negative impact of lead abandonment or retention of long lead fragments on long-term survival seems unquestionable [20,21,22]. On the other hand, little is known about the influence of small (<4 cm) retained fragments surrounded by scar tissue and impossible to be grasped and removed, especially in patients with infections. This study shows that leaving in place an irremovable fragment of the lead (<4 cm) or even the lead tip does not affect survival time either in non-infectious patients or in patients with various types of CIED infections. In practice, this means that when there is no possibility of long-term observation of the patient with a small lead fragment retained after TLE, clinical success can be assumed even in the case of infection.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Non-removable lead fragments are encountered in about 4.2% of lead extraction procedures.
- (2)
- CIED infection has no influence on partial radiographic success but younger patient age at first CIED implantation, multiple CIED-related procedures and higher complexity of lead extraction were independent risk factors for retention of non-removable lead fragments.
- (3)
- Extraction of defibrillation (ICD) leads seems to be associated with a lower probability of retaining lead fragments.
- (4)
- Retention of an irremovable fragment of the lead (<4 cm) or even the lead tip does not affect survival time either in non-infectious patients or in patients with various types of CIED infections.
- (5)
- “Better survival” in patients with retained lead fragments following TLE is not a result of their presence but is related to the factors predisposing to the occurrence of remnants, especially younger patient age at first CIED implantation and better health status.
Study Limitations
Several limitations to this study need to be considered. It presents the experience of three centres but the same first extractor. The database was prospectively integrated, but analysis was performed retrospectively. The procedures were performed using all types of mechanical systems but not laser powered sheaths. Despite a very large population of patients undergoing TLE with implant duration longer than in other studies and a similar rate of lead fracture (6%), a significant proportion of distal lead fragments were removed or their length was reduced to <4 cm. Only in five patients we were forced to leave in place a 5–7 cm fragment (lead extraction failure). The number was too small to generate a separate group for analysis (especially since four patients were still alive and one died from non-cardiac causes). The disadvantage of the study is the lack of a sufficiently large group of procedure failures; however, the technique of grasping and removing remnants, developed 17 years ago, made it possible to obtain such results.
Author Contributions
A.K.—supervision, original draft editing, W.J.—methodology, statistical study, A.P.—writing and review, D.N.—investigation, data curation, corresponding author. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
All patients gave their informed written consent to undergo TLE and use anonymous data from their medical records, approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Regional Chamber of Physicians in Lublin no. 288/2018/KB/VII. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Readers can access the data supporting the conclusions of the study at www.usuwanieelektrod.pl, accessed on 1 August 2021.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Wilkoff, B.L.; Love, C.J.; Byrd, C.L.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Carrillo, R.G.; Crossley, G.H., 3rd; Epstein, L.M.; Friedman, R.A.; Kennergren, C.E.; Mitkowski, P.; et al. Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: This document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA). Heart Rhythm. 2009, 6, 1085–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusumoto, F.M.; Schoenfeld, M.H.; Wilkoff, B.; Berul, C.I.; Birgersdotter-Green, U.M.; Carrillo, R.; Cha, Y.M.; Clancy, J.; Deharo, J.C.; Ellenbogen KAExner, D.; et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm 2017, 14, e503–e551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bongiorni, M.G.; Burri, H.; Deharo, J.C.; Starck, C.; Kennergren, C.; Saghy, L.; Rao, A.; Tascini, C.; Lever, N.; Kutarski, A.; et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: Recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: Endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. Europace 2018, 20, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, H.J.; Fearnot, N.E.; Byrd, C.L.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Love, C.J.; Sellers, T.D. Five-years’ experience with intravascular lead extraction. U.S. Lead Extraction Database. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1994, 17, 2016–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrd, C.L.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Love, C.J.; Sellers, T.D.; Turk, K.T.; Reeves, R.; Young, R.; Crevey, B.; Kutalek, S.P.; Freedman, R.; et al. Intravascular extraction of problematic or infected permanent pacemaker leads: 1994–1996. U.S. Extraction Database, MED Institute. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 1999, 22, 1348–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrd, C.L.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Love, C.J.; Sellers, T.D.; Reiser, C. Clinical study of the laser sheath for lead extraction: The total experience in the United States. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2002, 25, 804–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bongiorni, M.G.; Giannola, G.; Arena, G.; Soldati, E.; Bartoli, C.; Lapira, F.; Zucchelli, G.; Di Cori, A. Pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator transvenous lead extraction. Ital. Heart J. 2005, 6, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Roux, J.F.; Pagé, P.; Dubuc, M.; Thibault, B.; Guerra, P.G.; Macle, L.; Roy, D.; Talajic, M.; Khairy, P. Laser lead extraction: Predictors of success and complications. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2007, 30, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rusanov, A.; Spotnitz, H.M. A 15-year experience with permanent pacemaker and defibrillator lead and patch extractions. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2010, 89, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diemberger, I.; Migliore, F.; Biffi, M.; Cipriani, A.; Bertaglia, E.; Lorenzetti, S.; Massaro, G.; Tanzarella, G.; Boriani, G. The “Subtle” connection between development of cardiac implantable electrical device infection and survival after complete system removal: An observational prospective multicenter study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2018, 250, 146–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morita, J.; Yamaji, K.; Nagashima, M.; Kondo, Y.; Sadohara, Y.; Hirokami, J.; Kuji, R.; Korai, K.; Fukunaga, M.; Hiroshima, K.; et al. Predictors of lead break during transvenous lead extraction. J. Arrhythm. 2021, 37, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Calvagna, G.M.; Romeo, P.; Ceresa, F.; Valsecchi, S. Transvenous retrieval of foreign objects lost during cardiac device implantation or revision: A 10-year experience. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2013, 36, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutarski, A.; Pietura, R.; Czajkowski, M. Breakage of extracted leads: Another management option. Kardiol. Pol. 2012, 70, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Kutarski, A.; Malecka, B.; Zabek, A.; Pietura, R. Broken leads with proximal endings in the cardiovascular system: Serious consequences and extraction difficulties. Cardiol. J. 2013, 20, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stefanczyk, P.; Polewczyk, A.; Nowosielecka, D.; Tulecki, L.; Miszczak-Knecht, M.; Jachec, W.; Kleinrok, A.; Bieganowska, K.; Kutarski, A. Lead Extraction and Re-Extractions—Inherent Parts of Permanent Pacing in Children and Young Adults. J. Biomed. Res. Environ. Sci. 2022, 3, 221–226. Available online: https://www.jelsciences.com/articles/jbres1426.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2022). [CrossRef]
- Stefańczyk, P.; Borzęcki, W.; Tułecki, Ł.; Tomków, K.; Nowosielecka, D.; Kleinrok, A.; Kutarski, A. To replace or to abandon and implant a new lead? Conservative approach creates new challenges (and risks) for the patients in future. Should we still wait for class 1 indications? Case report and discussion of the problem. Heart Beat. 2019, 4, 16–192019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanawuttiwat, T.; Cheng, A.; Rickard, J.; Chow, G.V.; Sciortino, C.M.; Brinker, J. Successful extraction of right ventricular lead remnants using the FlexCath® steerable sheath. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2016, 45, 107–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raatikainen, M.J.; Perälä, J.; Lahtinen, J. Successful defibrillator lead remnant extraction from right ventricle using a steerable transseptal sheath and a basket retriever. Europace 2009, 11, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutarski, A.; Chudzik, M.; Tomaszewski, A.; Pietura, R.; Oszczygiel, A.; Czajkowski, M.; Wranicz, J.K. Difficult dual-stage transcutaneous multiple lead extraction with loss of external silicone tube of broken lead. Cardiol. J. 2013, 20, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gomes, S.; Cranney, G.; Bennett, M.; Giles, R. Long-term outcomes following transvenous lead extraction. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2016, 39, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gomes, S.; Cranney, G.; Bennett, M.; Giles, R. Lead Extraction for Treatment of Cardiac Device Infection: A 20-Year Single Centre Experience. Heart Lung Circ. 2017, 26, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nof, E.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Auricchio, A.; Butter, C.; Dagres, N.; Deharo, J.C.; Rinaldi, C.A.; Maggioni, A.P.; Kutarski, A.; ELECTRa Investigators; et al. Comparison of outcomes in infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices between complete, partial, and failed lead removal: An ESC-EHRA-EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTrolled) registry. Europace 2019, 21, 1876–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Golzio, P.G.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Giuggia, M.; Vinci, M.; Gazzera, C.; Breatta, A.D. Retrieval of pacemaker lead tip embolized into the distal pulmonary arterial bed during extraction procedure. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2007, 30, 1558–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, T.; Oliver, J.; Sheridan, P.; Sahu, J.; Bowes, R. Fragmentation and embolization of pacemaker leads as a complication of lead extraction. Europace 2010, 12, 754–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, D.; Baek, Y.S.; Lee, M.; Uhm, J.S.; Pak, H.N.; Lee, M.H.; Joung, B. Remnant Pacemaker Lead Tips after Lead Extractions in Pacemaker Infections. Korean Circ. J. 2016, 46, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kutarski, A.; Polewczyk, M.; Pietura, M. A rare complication of transvenous lead extraction—Pulmonary embolization with a broken distal lead fragment. Heart Beat. 2016, 1, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zucchelli, G.; Di Cori, A.; Segreti, L.; Laroche, C.; Blomstrom-Lundqvist, C.; Kutarski, A.; Regoli, F.; Butter, C.; Defaye, P.; ELECTRa Investigators; et al. Major cardiac and vascular complications after transvenous lead extraction: Acute outcome and predictive factors from the ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) registry. Europace 2019, 21, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barakat, A.F.; Wazni, O.M.; Tarakji, K.; Saliba, W.I.; Nimri, N.; Rickard, J.; Brunner, M.; Bhargava, M.; Kanj, M.; Baranowski, B.; et al. Transvenous lead extraction at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade: Complexity, safety, and outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2017, 14, 1807–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bontempi, L.; Vassanelli, F.; Cerini, M.; Inama, L.; Salghetti, F.; Giacopelli, D.; Gargaro, A.; Raweh, A.; Curnis, A. Predicting the difficulty of a transvenous lead extraction procedure: Validation of the LED index. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2017, 28, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bontempi, L.; Curnis, A.; Della Bella, P.; Cerini, M.; Radinovic, A.; Inama, L.; Melillo, F.; Salghetti, F.; Marzi, A.; Gargaro, A.; et al. The MB score: A new risk stratification index to predict the need for advanced tools in lead extraction procedures. Europace 2020, 22, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mazzone, P.; Tsiachris, D.; Marzi, A.; Ciconte, G.; Paglino, G.; Sora, N.; Sala, S.; Vergara, P.; Gulletta, S.; Della Bella, P. Predictors of advanced lead extraction based on a systematic stepwise approach: Results from a high volume center. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2013, 36, 837–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutarski, A.; Polewczyk, M.; Polewczyk, A.M.; Polewczyk, A. A relevant Byrd dilator sheath damage during transvenous lead extraction—The rare phenomenon with potentially serious consequences. Heart Beat. 2017, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kutarski, A.; Jacheć, W.; Tułecki, Ł.; Czajkowski, M.; Nowosielecka, D.; Stefańczyk, P.; Tomków, K.; Polewczyk, A. Disparities in transvenous lead extraction in young adults. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCanta, A.C.; Tanel, R.E.; Gralla, J.; Runciman, D.M.; Collins, K.K. The fate of nontargeted endocardial leads during the extraction of one or more targeted leads in pediatrics and congenital heart disease. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2014, 37, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tułecki, Ł.; Czajkowski, M.; Targońska, S.; Polewczyk, A.; Jacheć, W.; Tomków, K.; Karpeta, K.; Nowosielecka, D.; Kutarski, A. The role of cardiac surgeon in transvenous lead extraction: Experience from 3462 procedures. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2022, 33, 1357–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nowosielecka, D.; Jacheć, W.; Polewczyk, A.; Tułecki, Ł.; Tomków, K.; Stefańczyk, P.; Tomaszewski, A.; Brzozowski, W.; Szcześniak-Stańczyk, D.; Kleinrok, A.; et al. Transesophageal Echocardiography As a Monitoring Tool During Transvenous Lead Extraction-Does It Improve Procedure Effectiveness? J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oszczygieł, E.; Kutarski, A.; Oszczygieł, A.; Mańkowska-Załuska, B.; Chudzik, M.; Wranicz, J.K.; Cygankiewicz, I. Risk score to assess mortality risk in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2017, 40, 918–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deckx, S.; Marynissen, T.; Rega, F.; Ector, J.; Nuyens, D.; Heidbuchel, H.; Willems, R. Predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality after transvenous lead extraction: A single-centre experience. Europace 2014, 16, 1218–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Diemberger, I.; Biffi, M.; Lorenzetti, S.; Martignani, C.; Raffaelli, E.; Ziacchi, M.; Rapezzi, C.; Pacini, D.; Boriani, G. Predictors of long-term survival free from relapses after extraction of infected CIED. Europace 2018, 20, 1018–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diemberger, I.; Segreti, L.; Rinaldi, C.A.; Svendsen, J.H.; Kutarski, A.; Younis, A.; Laroche, C.; Leclercq, C.; Małecka, B.; Mitkowski, P.; et al. Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Device: The Impact of Systemic and Local Infection on Clinical Outcomes-An ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Substudy. Biology 2022, 11, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maytin, M.; Jones, S.O.; Epstein, L.M. Long-term mortality after transvenous lead extraction. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2012, 5, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mehta, V.S.; Elliott, M.K.; Sidhu, B.S.; Gould, J.; Kemp, T.; Vergani, V.; Kadiwar, S.; Shetty, A.K.; Blauth, C.; Gill, J.; et al. Long-term survival following transvenous lead extraction: Importance of indication and comorbidities. Heart Rhythm. 2021, 18, 1566–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polewczyk, A.; Jacheć, W.; Tomaszewski, A.; Brzozowski, W.; Czajkowski, M.; Opolski, G.; Grabowski, M.; Janion, M.; Kutarski, A. Lead-related infective endocarditis: Factors influencing early and long-term survival in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017, 14, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Narducci, M.L.; Di Monaco, A.; Pelargonio, G.; Leoncini, E.; Boccia, S.; Mollo, R.; Perna, F.; Bencardino, G.; Pennestrì, F.; Scoppettuolo, G.; et al. Presence of ‘ghosts’ and mortality after transvenous lead extraction. Europace 2017, 19, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kutarski, A.; Czajkowski, M.; Pietura, R.; Obszanski, B.; Polewczyk, A.; Jachec, W.; Polewczyk, M.; Młynarczyk, K.; Grabowski, M.; Opolski, G. Effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of non-powered mechanical sheaths for transvenous lead extraction. Europace 2018, 20, 1324–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Survival after TLE according to the presence or absence of lead remnants and infectious (pocket infection or lead-related infective endocarditis) or non-infectious indications.
Figure 1.
Survival after TLE according to the presence or absence of lead remnants and infectious (pocket infection or lead-related infective endocarditis) or non-infectious indications.
Table 1.
Clinical data, indications for lead extraction and pathogen type in infectious patients.
| Non-Infectious Indications | Pocket Infection | Lead-Related Infective Endocarditis | All Infectious Indications | All Patients | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | |
| n = 2453 | n = 106 | n = 343 | n = 16 | n = 789 | n = 34 | n = 1132 | n = 50 | n = 3585 | n = 156 | |
| Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | ||||||
| Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | ||||||
| Clinical data | ||||||||||
| Patient age during TLE [years] | 61.14 ± 16.00 | 54.62 ± 22.59 p < 0.001 | 69.87 ± 13.00 | 64.00 ± 15.93 p = 0.157 | 68.47 ± 13.58 | 64.74 ± 15.23 p = 0.171 | 68.89 ± 13.42 | 64.50 ± 15.29 p = 0.051 | 66.32 ± 15.33 | 57.79 ± 21.00 p < 0.001 |
| Patient age at first CIED implantation [years] | 56.59 ± 17.42 | 40.48 ± 23.29 p < 0.001 | 62.27 ± 13.55 | 52.81 ± 18.10 p = 0.025 | 60.99 ± 14.81 | 50.03 ± 19.26 p < 0.001 | 61.38 ± 14.44 | 50.88 ± 18.77 p < 0.001 | 58.10 ± 16.68 | 43.91 ± 22.39 p < 0.001 |
| Female | 1041 (42.44) | 41 (38.68) p = 0.445 | 92 (26.82) | 5 (31.25) p = 0.919 | 232 (29.40) | 14 (41.18) p = 0.171 | 324 (28.62) | 19 (38.00) p = 0.169 | 1365 (38.08) | 60 (38.46) p = 0.876 |
| Ischemic aetiology | 1396 (56.91) | 40 (37.74) p < 0.001 | 201 (58.60) | 10 (62.50) p = 0.905 | 428 (54.25) | 15 (44.11) p = 0.477 | 629 (55.56) | 25 (50.00) p = 0.715 | 2025 (56.48) | 65 (41.67) p < 0.001 |
| NYHA class [I–IV] | 1.83 ± 0.67 | 1.68 ± 0.70 p = 0.018 | 1.79 ± 0.65 | 1.38 ± 0.50 p = 0.022 | 1.90 ± 0.75 | 1.75 ± 0.73 p = 0.346 | 1.86 ± 0.72 | 1.63 ± 0.69 p = 0.047 | 1.84 ± 0.69 | 1.66 ± 0.69 p = 0.002 |
| LVEF [%] | 48.84 ± 15.45 | 54.09 ± 12.97 p = 0.005 | 49.17 ± 14.70 | 55.88 ± 12.18 p = 0.085 | 47.37 ± 15.04 | 53.86 ± 10.56 p = 0.007 | 47.83 ± 15.02 | 54.49 ± 11.01 p = 0.001 | 49.20 ± 15.33 | 54.22 ± 12.31 p < 0.001 |
| Congestive heart failure (symptomatic) | 480 (19.57) | 15 (14.15) p = 0.363 | 55 (16.04) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.166 | 153 (19.39) | 1 (2.94) p = 0.063 | 208 (18.38) | 1 (2.00) p = 0.013 | 688 (19.19) | 16 (10.26) p = 0.006 |
| Renal failure (any) | 457 (18.63) | 10 (9.43) p = 0.048 | 76 (22.16) | 2 (12.50) p = 0.516 | 241 (30.55) | 5 (14.71) p = 0.122 | 317 (28.00) | 7 (14.00) p = 0.068 | 774 (21.59) | 17 (10.90) p = 0.006 |
| Diabetes t.2 | 444 (18.14) | 10 (9.43) p = 0.022 | 72 (20.99) | 3 (18.75) p = 0.852 | 211 (26.81) | 5 (13.89) p = 0.118 | 283 (25.04) | 8 (15.39) p = 0.157 | 727 (20.28) | 18 (11.54) p = 0.008 |
| Charlson comorbidity index [points] | 4.52 ± 3.62 | 3.07 ± 3.20 p < 0.001 | 4.99 ± 3.46 | 3.94 ± 3.64 p = 0.136 | 5.49 ± 3.87 | 3.82 ± 3.24 p < 0.001 | 5.34 ± 3.76 | 3.86 ± 3.34 p = 0.002 | 4.78 ± 3.68 | 3.32 ± 2.26 p < 0.001 |
| Indications for lead extraction | ||||||||||
| Non-infectious | 2453 (100.0) | 106 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 2453 (68.42) | 106 (67.95) p = 0.972 |
| Infectious | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 343 (100.0) | 16 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 789 (100.0) | 34 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 1132 (100.0) | 50 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 1132 (31.58) | 50 (32.05) p = 0.783 |
| Pocket infection (isolated) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 343 (100.0) | 16 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 343 (30.30) | 16 (32.00) p = 0.938 | 343 (9.57) | 16 (10.26) p = 0.935 |
| LRIE + PI | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 441 (55.89) | 12 (35.29) p = 0.014 | 441 (38.96) | 12 (24.00) p = 0.032 | 441 (12.30) | 12 (7.69) p = 0.103 |
| LRIE (isolated) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 348 (44.11) | 22 (64.71) p = 0.029 | 348 30.74) | 22 (44.00) p = 0.019 | 348 (9.71) | 22 (14.10) p = 0.096 |
| LRIE all | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00 | 789 (100.0) | 34 (100.0) p = 1.000 | 789 (69.58) | 34 (68.00) p = 0.938 | 789 (22.01) | 34 (21.79) p = 0.878 |
| Main pathogen | ||||||||||
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 24 (7.96) | 1 (6.67) p = 0.885 | 105 (13.89) | 2 (5.88) p = 0.276 | 129 (12.08) | 3 (6.12) p = 0.285 | 129 (12.01) | 3 (6.12) p = 0.315 |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 63 (20.19) | 3 (20.00) p = 0.776 | 196 (25.93) | 7 (20.59) p = 0.571 | 259 (24.25) | 10 (20.48) p = 0.633 | 259 (24.12) | 10 (20.41) p = 0.697 |
| Staphylococcus (other) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 45 (14.42) | 1 (6.67) p = 0.878 | 107 (14.15) | 7 (20.59) p = 0.678 | 152 (14.23) | 8 (16.33) p = 0.844 | 152 (14.15) | 8 (16.33) p = 0.814 |
| Other bacteria | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 13 (4.17) | 1 (6.67) p = 0.863 | 62 (8.20) | 2 (5.88) p = 0.956 | 75 (7.02) | 3 (6.12) p = 0.876 | 75 (6.98) | 3 (6.12) p = 0.829 |
| Culture negative | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 112 (35.90) | 7 (46.68) p = 0.538 | 175 (23.15) | 11 (32.35) p = 0.172 | 287 (26.87) | 18 (36.74) p = 0.106 | 292 (27.19) | 18 (36.74) p = 0.106 |
| Lack of culture result | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 55 (17.63) | 2 (13.33) p = 0.863 | 111 (14.68) | 5 (14.71) p = 0.978 | 166 (15.54) | 7 (14.29) p = 0.830 | 167 (15.55) | 7 (14.29) p = 0.663 |
LR—lead remnant, TLE—transvenous lead extraction, CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, NYHA—New York Heart Association, LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction, LRIE—lead-related infective endocarditis, PI—pocket infection.
Table 2.
System and history of pacing, procedure-related risk factors and predictors of major procedure complications and complexity.
Table 2.
System and history of pacing, procedure-related risk factors and predictors of major procedure complications and complexity.
| Non-Infectious Indications | Pocket Infection | Lead-Related Infectious Endocarditis | All Infectious Indications | All Patients | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | |
| n = 2453 | n = 106 | n = 343 | n = 16 | n = 789 | n = 34 | n = 1132 | n = 50 | n = 3585 | n = 156 | |
| Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | ||||||
| Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | ||||||
| System and history of pacing | ||||||||||
| ICD—all | 575 (23.44) | 9 (8.49) p = 0.002 | 70 (20.41) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.091 | 168 (21.29) | 3 (8.82) p = 0.209 | 238 (21.03) | 3 (6.00) p = 0.031 | 813 (22.68) | 12 (7.69) p < 0.001 |
| CRT-D pacing system | 140 (5.71) | 3 (2.83) p = 0.490 | 29 (8.46) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.457 | 88 (11.15) | 1 (2.94) p = 0.188 | 117 (10.34) | 1 (2.00) p = 0.080 | 257 (7.17) | 4 (2.56) p = 0.037 |
| Presence of abandoned lead before TLE | 202 (8.24) | 23 (21.70) p < 0.001 | 45 (13.12) | 3 (18.75) p = 0.719 | 127 (16.10) | 13 (38.24) p = 0.004 | 172 (15.19) | 16 (32.00) p = 0.013 | 374 (10.43) | 39 (25.00) p < 0.001 |
| Number of procedures before lead extraction | 1.70 ± 0.93 | 2.38 ± 1.33 p < 0.001 | 2.14 ± 1.15 | 2.67 ± 0.82 p = 0.007 | 2.06 ± 1.23 | 3.24 ± 1.79 p < 0.001 | 2.09 ± 1.21 | 3.06 ± 1.56 p < 0.001 | 1.83 ± 1.05 | 2.61 ± 1.44 p < 0.001 |
| PADIT score [points] | 3.53 ± 2.82 | 4.49 ± 2.02 p < 0.001 | 3.90 ± 3.00 | 4.06 ± 2.57 p = 0.481 | 4.13 ± 3.02 | 4.79 ± 2.79 p = 0.186 | 4.06 ± 3.01 | 4.56 ± 2.72 p = 0.133 | 3.70 ± 2.89 | 4.51 ± 2.92 p < 0.001 |
| Dwell time of oldest lead per patient before TLE [months] | 103.4 ± 73.31 | 178.1 ± 94.04 p < 0.001 | 89.28 ± 68.91 | 134.3 ± 49.25 p < 0.001 | 89.72 ± 68.19 | 168.8 ± 80.43 p < 0.001 | 89.57 ± 68.40 | 157.8 ± 73.23 p < 0.001 | 99.04 ± 74.17 | 171.6 ± 88.19 p < 0.001 |
| Global (cumulative) implant duration per patient [years] | 15.25 ± 12.80 | 26.71 ± 15.24 p < 0.001 | 12.91 ± 10.80 | 22.57 ± 7.98 p < 0.001 | 14.39 ± 12.61 | 30.55 ± 15.55 p < 0.001 | 13.94 ± 12.10 | 28.00 ± 14.02 p < 0.001 | 14.84 ± 12.60 | 27.12 ± 14.82 p < 0.001 |
| Procedure-related risk factors for major complications and complexity of TLE | ||||||||||
| Number of extracted leads per patient | 1.48 ± 0.64 | 1.75 ± 0.79 p < 0.001 | 1.88 ± 0.67 | 2.19 ± 0.40 p = 0.033 | 2.05 ± 0.80 | 2.41 ± 0.70 p < 0.003 | 2.00 ± 0.77 | 2.34 ± 0.63 p < 0.001 | 1.64 ± 0.72 | 1.94 ± 0.79 p < 0.001 |
| Three or more leads extracted | 152 (6.20) | 17 (16.04) p < 0.001 | 44 (12.83) | 16 (100.0) p < 0.001 | 164 (20.79) | 14 (41.18) p < 0.001 | 208 (18.38) | 17 (34.00) p = 0.0.10 | 360 (10.04) | 34 (21.80) p < 0.001 |
| Alternative approach | 65 (2.65) | 17 (16.04) p < 0.001 | 8 (2.33) | 1 (6.25) p = 0.872 | 34 (4.31) | 10 (29.41) p < 0.001 | 42 (2.65) | 11 (22.00) p = 0.001 | 107 (2.99) | 28 (17.95) p < 0.001 |
| Extraction of abandoned lead(s) (any) | 180 (7.34) | 20 (18.87) p < 0.001 | 42 (12.25) | 2 (12.50) p = 0.719 | 122 (15.460 | 13 (38.24) p = 0.001 | 164 (14.49) | 15 (30.00) p = 0.005 | 344 (9.60) | 35 (22.44) p < 0.001 |
| ICD lead extraction | 652 (26.58) | 11 (10.38) p < 0.001 | 99 (28.86) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.025 | 255 (32.32) | 4 (11.77) p < 0.001 | 354 (31.27) | 4 (8.00) p < 0.001 | 1006 (28.06) | 15 (9.62) p < 0.001 |
| Dwell time of oldest extracted lead per patient before TLE (months) | 101.1 ± 75.07 | 177.7 ± 94.13 p < 0.001 | 87.94 ± 67.69 | 134.3 ± 49.25 p = 0.001 | 89.21 (67.74) | 167.4 ± 78.67 p < 0.001 | 88.83 (67.70) | 156.8 ± 71.79 p = 0.001 | 97.20 ± 73.04 | 171.0 ± 87.90 p < 0.001 |
| Global (cumulative) age of extracted leads per patient (in years) | 12.98 ± 12.49 | 23.37 ± 15.63 p < 0.001 | 12.57 ± 10.50 | 22.56 ± 7.98 p = 0.001 | 14.17 (12.44) | 28.81 ± 14.44 p < 0.001 | 13.69 ± 11.90 | 26.81 ± 12.98 p = 0.001 | 13.21 ± 12.31 | 25.15 ± 14.83 p < 0.001 |
LR—lead remnant, TLE—transvenous lead extraction, ICD—cardiac implantable cardioverter defibrillator, CRT-D—cardiac resynchronisation therapy cardioverter defibrillator.
Table 3.
TLE complexity, complications, effectiveness and short- and long-term mortality.
| Non-Infectious Indications | Pocket Infection | Lead-Related Infectious Endocarditis | All Infectious Indications | All Patients | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | LR(−) | LR(+) | |
| n = 2453 | n = 106 | n = 343 | n = 16 | n = 789 | n = 34 | n = 1132 | n = 50 | n = 3585 | n = 156 | |
| Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | Mann–Whitney U test Chi2 test | ||||||
| Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | Mean ± SD Count (%) | ||||||
| Procedure complexity and outcomes | ||||||||||
| Procedure duration (sheath-to-sheath) [minutes] | 13.08 ± 18.41 | 50.13 ± 62.44 p < 0.001 | 13.07 ± 19.05 | 26.00 ± 22.00 p < 0.001 | 16.02 ± 23.38 | 36.71 ± 31.05 p < 0.001 | 15.12 ± 22.19 | 33.28 ± 28.68 p < 0.001 | 13.73 ± 19.70 | 44.73 ± 54.44 p < 0.001 |
| Average time of single lead extraction * [minutes] | 8.70 ± 11.62 | 28.38 ± 32.81 p < 0.001 | 6.87 ± 8.91 | 12.07 ± 10.20 p = 0.009 | 7.51 ± 9.33 | 15.11 ± 11.83 p < 0.001 | 7.32 ± 9.20 | 14.14 ± 11.32 p < 0.001 | 8.26 ± 10.93 | 23.76 ± 28.47 p < 0.001 |
| Unexpected procedure difficulty (any) | 460 (18.75) | 69 (65.09) p < 0.001 | 42 (12.54) | 10 (62.50) p < 0.001 | 109 (13.82) | 18 (52.94) p < 0.001 | 151 (13.34) | 28 (56.00) p < 0.001 | 611 (17.04) | 97 (62.18) p < 0.001 |
| Need to change venous approach | 57 (2.32) | 17 (16.04) p < 0.001 | 8 (2.33) | 2 (12.50) p = 0.101 | 33 (4.18) | 10 (29.41) p < 0.001 | 41 (3.62) | 12 (24.00) p < 0.001 | 98 (2.73) | 29 (18.95) p < 0.001 |
| Fracture of extracted lead | 57 (2.32) | 45 (42.45) p < 0.001 | 7 (2.04) | 7 (43.75) p < 0.001 | 15 (1.90) | 13 (38.24) p < 0.001 | 22 (1.94) | 20 (40.00) p < 0.001 | 79 (2.20) | 65 (41.67) p < 0.001 |
| Two or more technical problems | 122 (4.79) | 47 (44.34) p < 0.001 | 15 (4.37) | 5 (32.25) p < 0.001 | 35 (4.44) | 13 (38.24) p < 0.001 | 50 (4.42) | 18 (36.00) p < 0.001 | 172 (4.80) | 65 (41.67) p < 0.001 |
| Use of second line/advanced tools | ||||||||||
| Evolution (old and new) or TightRail | 28 (1.14) | 14 (13.21) p < 0.001 | 4 (1.17) | 1 (6.25) p = 0.545 | 6 (0.76) | 2 (5.88) p = 0.046 | 10 (0.88) | 3 (6.00) p = 0.010 | 38 (1.06) | 17 (10.90) p < 0.001 |
| Metal sheath | 209 (8.52) | 32 (30.19) p < 0.001 | 17 (4.96) | 2 (12.50) p = 0.455 | 41 (5.20) | 3 (8.82) p = 0.664 | 58 (5.12) | 5 (10.00) p = 0.278 | 267 (7.45) | 37 (23.72) p < 0.001 |
| Lasso catheter/snare/basket catheter | 96 (3.92) | 36 (33.96) p < 0.001 | 7 (2.04) | 6 (37.50) p < 0.001 | 26 (3.30) | 9 (26.47) p < 0.001 | 33 (2.92) | 15 (30.00) p < 0.001 | 129 (3.60) | 51 (32.69) p < 0.001 |
| TLE efficacy and complications | ||||||||||
| Major complications (any) | 46 (1.88) | 10 (9.43) p < 0.001 | 3 (0.88) | 2 (12.50) p = 0.005 | 12 (1.52) | 4 (11.77) p < 0.001 | 15 (1.33) | 6 (12.00) p < 0.001 | 61 (1.70) | 16 (10.26) p < 0.001 |
| Haemopericardium | 30 (1.22) | 8 (7.55) p = 0.002 | 2 (0.58) | 1 (6.25) p = 0.303 | 6 (0.76) | 3 (8.82) p < 0.001 | 7 (0.62) | 2 (4.00) p < 0.001 | 36 (1.00) | 12 (7.69) p < 0.001 |
| Tricuspid valve damage during TLE (severe) | 14 (0.57) | 2 (1.89) p = 0.308 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (6.25) p = 0.027 | 5 (0.63) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.508 | 5 (0.44) | 1 (2.00) p = 0.639 | 19 (0.53) | 3 (1.92) p = 0.095 |
| Emergent cardiac surgery | 25 (1.02) | 7 (6.60) p = 0.042 | 2 (0.58) | 1 (6.25) p = 0.159 | 5 (0.63) | 3 (8.82) p < 0.001 | 7 (0.62) | 3 (6.00) p = 0.002 | 32 (0.893) | 10 (6.41) p < 0.001 |
| Complete clinical success | 2436 (99.31) | 101 (95.28) p < 0.001 | 342 (99.71) | 1 (6.25) p < 0.001 | 779 (98.73) | 4 (11.77) p < 0.001 | 1121 (99.03) | 5 (10.00) p < 0.001 | 3557 (99.22) | 105 (67.31) p < 0.001 |
| Complete procedural success | 2436 (99.31) | 0 (0.00) p < 0.001 | 342 (99.71) | 0 (0.00) p < 0.001 | 779 (98.73) | 1 (2.94) p < 0.001 | 1121 (99.03) | 1 (2.00) p < 0.001 | 3557 (99.22) | 1 (0.65) p < 0.001 |
| Death, procedure related (intra-, post-procedural) | 3 (0.12) | 2 (1.89) p = 0.004 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.94) p = 0.021 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.00) p = 0.023 | 3 (0.08) | 3 (1.92) p < 0.001 |
| Death, indication-related (intra-, post-procedural) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.29) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.835 | 2 (0.25) | 1 (2.94) p = 0.274 | 3 (0.27) | 1 (2.00) p = 0.410 | 3 (0.08) | 1 (0.64) p = 0.404 |
| Survival at follow-up | ||||||||||
| Log rank p for all models | p < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Survivors at follow-up | 1743 (71.06) | 82 (77.34) | 181 (52.77) | 10 (62.50) | 354 (44.87) | 17 (50.00) | 535 (47.26) | 27 (54.00) | 2278 (63.54) | 109 (69.87) |
| <First 2 days after TLE | 3 (0.12) | 1 (0.94) p = 0.404 | 1 (0.29) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.829 | 2 (0.25) | 4 (11.76) p < 0.001 | 3 (0.27) | 4 (8.00) p < 0.001 | 6 (0.17) | 5 (3.21) p < 0.001 |
| One-month mortality after TLE | 18 (0.73) | 2 (1.89) p = 0.455 | 4 (1.17) | 0 (0.00) p = 0.433 | 35 (4.44) | 4 (11.76) p = 0.120 | 39 (3.45) | 4 (8.00) p = 0.196 | 57 (1.59) | 6 (3.85) p = 0.068 |
| One-year mortality after TLE | 131 (5.34) | 7 (6.60) Log rank p = 0.811 | 28 (8.16) | 0 (0.00) Log rank p = 0.244 | 140 (17.74) | 7 (20.59) Log rank p = 0.418 | 168 (14.84) | 7 (14.00) Log rank p = 0.208 | 299 (8.34) | 14 (8.97) Log rank p = 0.461 |
| Three-year mortality after TLE | 211 (8.60) | 11 (10.38) Log rank p = 0.419 | 71 (20.70) | 1 (6.25) Log rank p = 0.132 | 237 (30.04) | 9 (26.47) Log rank p = 0.158 | 308 (27.21) | 10 (20.00) Log rank p = 0.046 | 619 (17.27) | 21 (13.46) Log rank p = 0.054 |
| Total mortality at follow-up | 710 (28.94) | 24 (22.64) Log rank p = 0.012 | 162 (47.23) | 6 (37.50) Log rank p = 0.181 | 435 (55.13) | 17 (50.00) Log rank p = 0.052 | 597 (52.74) | 23 (46.00) Log rank p = 0.010 | 1307 (36.46) | 47 (30.13) Log rank p = 0.041 |
LR—lead remnant, TLE—transvenous lead extraction.
Table 4.
Predictive factors for retention of lead fragments after TLE in univariable and multivariable regression analysis.
Table 4.
Predictive factors for retention of lead fragments after TLE in univariable and multivariable regression analysis.
| Univariable Linear Regression | Multivariable Linear Regression | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | |
| The tip of the lead left after TLE | ||||||
| Patient age at first CIED implantation [by 1 year] | 0.977 | 0.966–0.989 | p < 0.001 | 0.984 | 0.972–0.997 | p = 0.013 |
| Number of procedures before lead extraction [by 1] | 1.498 | 1.285–1.747 | p < 0.001 | 1.362 | 1.153–1.609 | p < 0.001 |
| Unexpected procedure difficulty (any) [y/n] | 3.027 | 1.856–4.973 | p < 0.001 | 2.211 | 1.327–3.686 | p = 0.002 |
| Lead or longer fragment of the lead retained after TLE | ||||||
| Patient age at first CIED implantation [by 1 year] | 0.964 | 0.955–0.974 | p < 0.001 | 0.978 | 0.967–0.988 | p < 0.001 |
| ICD lead extraction [y/n] | 0.231 | 0.106–0.502 | p < 0.001 | 0.311 | 0.141–0.685 | p = 0.004 |
| Number of procedures before lead extraction [by 1] | 1.628 | 1.420–1.868 | p < 0.001 | 1.330 | 1.134–1.560 | p < 0.001 |
| Unexpected procedure difficulty (any) [y/n] | 9.815 | 6.192–15.56 | p < 0.001 | 6.319 | 3.903–10.23 | p < 0.001 |
| All remnants present after TLE | ||||||
| Patient age at first CIED implantation [by 1 year] | 0.965 | 0.958–0.972 | p < 0.001 | 0.975 | 0.968–0.983 | p < 0.001 |
| ICD lead extraction [y/n] | 0.303 | 0.182–0.503 | p < 0.001 | 0.393 | 0.234–0.662 | p < 0.001 |
| Number of procedures before lead extraction [by 1] | 1.607 | 1.444–1.789 | p < 0.001 | 1.323 | 1.171–1.494 | p < 0.001 |
| Unexpected procedure difficulty (any) [y/n] | 7.483 | 5.392–10.38 | p < 0.001 | 4.909 | 3.478–6.927 | p < 0.001 |
CIED—cardiac implantable electronic device, TLE—transvenous lead extraction, ICD—cardiac implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Table 5.
Prognostic factors for survival after TLE in the entire cohort of patients in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis.
Table 5.
Prognostic factors for survival after TLE in the entire cohort of patients in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis.
| Univariable Cox Regression | Multivariable Cox Regression | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire Cohort | ||||||
| HR | 95% CI | p | HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Patient age during TLE [by 1 year] | 1.050 | 1.045–1.055 | p < 0.001 | 1.046 | 1.040–1.052 | p < 0.001 |
| Female [y/n] | 0.653 | 0.582–0.733 | p < 0.001 | 0.927 | 0.817–1.051 | p = 0.238 |
| Ischemic aetiology [y/n] | 1.799 | 1.610–2.012 | p < 0.001 | 0.950 | 0.852–1.080 | p = 0.491 |
| NYHA functional class [by 1] | 2.149 | 2.000–2.308 | p < 0.001 | 1.345 | 1.224–1.477 | p < 0.001 |
| LVEF [by 1 %p] | 0.966 | 0.962–0.969 | p < 0.001 | 0.979 | 0.974–0.984 | p < 0.001 |
| Renal failure (any) [y/n] | 3.245 | 2.896–3.635 | p < 0.001 | 1.835 | 1.628–2.068 | p < 0.001 |
| Diabetes t. 2 [y/n] | 1.825 | 1.616–2.061 | p < 0.001 | 1.322 | 1.168–2.068 | p < 0.001 |
| Charlson comorbidity index [by 1 point] | 1.146 | 1.131–1.161 | p < 0.001 | |||
| Pocket infection [y/n] | 1.178 | 1.001–1.386 | p = 0.048 | 1.300 | 1.095–1.545 | p = 0.001 |
| Lead-related infective endocarditis [y/n] | 1.717 | 1.532–1.924 | p < 0.001 | 1.614 | 1.430–1.822 | p < 0.001 |
| ICD VR-DR before TLE [y/n] | 1.182 | 1.043–1.340 | p = 0.009 | 1.126 | 0.969–1.308 | p = 0.123 |
| CRTD before TLE [y/n] | 2.274 | 1.905–2.716 | p < 0.001 | 1.308 | 1.071–1.598 | p = 0.009 |
| 1 Lead remnant after TLE [y/n] | 0.622 | 0.460–0.840 | p = 0.002 | 0.858 | 0.634–1.161 | p = 0.321 |
| Non-infectious indications for lead extraction | ||||||
| Patient age during TLE [by 1 year] | 1.053 | 1.046–1.060 | p < 0.001 | 1.052 | 1.043–1.061 | 0.000 |
| Female [y/n] | 0.632 | 0.543–0.735 | p < 0.001 | 0.877 | 0.738–1.043 | 0.137 |
| Ischemic aetiology [y/n] | 2.027 | 1.738–2.364 | p < 0.001 | 0.921 | 0.779–1.089 | 0.334 |
| NYHA functional class [by 1] | 2.246 | 2.034–2.480 | p < 0.001 | 1.262 | 1.103–1.443 | 0.001 |
| LVEF [by 1 %p] | 0.964 | 0.959–0.968 | p < 0.001 | 0.977 | 0.971–0.984 | 0.000 |
| Renal failure (any) [y/n] | 3.419 | 2.924–3.997 | p < 0.001 | 1.787 | 1.511–2.113 | 0.000 |
| Diabetes t. 2 [y/n] | 1.773 | 1.497–2.099 | p < 0.001 | 1.242 | 1.043–1.478 | 0.015 |
| Charlson comorbidity index [by 1 point] | 1.146 | 1.126–1.167 | p < 0.001 | |||
| ICD VR-DR before TLE [y/n] | 1.166 | 1.001–1.374 | p = 0.049 | 1.187 | 0.982–1.437 | 0.077 |
| CRTD before TLE [y/n] | 2.084 | 1.594–2.723 | p < 0.001 | 1.258 | 0.942–1.681 | 0.120 |
| 2 Lead remnant after TLE [y/n] | 0.643 | 0.429–0.967 | p = 0.034 | 0.983 | 0.653–1.479 | 0.934 |
| Infectious indications for lead extraction | ||||||
| Patient age during TLE [by 1 year] | 1.042 | 1.034–1.049 | p < 0.001 | 1.039 | 1.030–1.048 | p < 0.001 |
| Female [y/n] | 0.833 | 0.696–0.997 | p = 0.047 | 0.971 | 0.804–1.173 | p = 0.760 |
| Ischemic aetiology [y/n] | 1.572 | 1.337–1.852 | p < 0.001 | 0.982 | 0.826–1.168 | p = 0.842 |
| NYHA functional class [by 1] | 2.013 | 1.818–2.229 | p < 0.001 | 1.466 | 1.283–1.674 | p < 0.001 |
| LVEF [by 1 %p] | 0.968 | 0.963–0.973 | p < 0.001 | 0.981 | 0.973–0.989 | p < 0.001 |
| Renal failure (any) [y/n] | 2.751 | 2.331–3.248 | p < 0.001 | 1.881 | 1.583–2.235 | p < 0.001 |
| Diabetes t. 2 [y/n] | 1.727 | 1.449–2.060 | p < 0.001 | 1.407 | 1.178–1.682 | p < 0.001 |
| Charlson comorbidity index [by 1 point] | 1.135 | 1.112–1.157 | p < 0.001 | |||
| ICD VR-DR before TLE [y/n] | 1.332 | 1.096–1.620 | p = 0.004 | 0.981 | 0.763–1.260 | p = 0.878 |
| CRTD before TLE [y/n] | 2.170 | 1.711–2.751 | p < 0.001 | 1.269 | 0.948–1.698 | p = 0.109 |
| 3 Lead remnant after TLE y/n] | 0.605 | 0.391–0.935 | p = 0.024 | 0.777 | 0.499–1.208 | p = 0.262 |
| Staphylococcus aureus [y/n] | 1.324 | 1.051–1.667 | p = 0.017 | 1.211 | 0.950–1.542 | p = 0.122 |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis [y/n] | 0.816 | 0.677–0.983 | p = 0.032 | 0.885 | 0.725–1.081 | p = 0.231 |
| Other Staphylococci [y/n] | 1.084 | 0.626–1.878 | p = 0.774 | |||
| Other bacteria [y/n] | 1.760 | 1.331–2.328 | p < 0.001 | 1.463 | 1.093–1.960 | p = 0.011 |
| Culture negative [y/n] | 0.857 | 0.712–1.033 | p = 0.105 | |||
| Lack of culture results [y/n] | 1.137 | 0.907–1.426 | p = 0.265 | |||
1 Lead remnant after TLE—variant of multivariable model: (the lead tip); [HR = 0.909: 95% CI (0.596–1.388); p = 0.660], (longer portion of the lead); [HR = 0.839: 95% CI (0.538–1.311); p = 0.441]. 2 Lead remnant after TLE—variant of multivariable model: (the lead tip); [HR = 0.973: 95% CI (0.549–1.724); p = 0.926], (longer portion of the lead); [HR = 0.999: 95% CI (0.562–1.776); p = 0.997]. 3 Lead remnant after TLE—variant of multivariable model: (the lead tip); [HR = 0.806: 95% CI (0.430–1.513); p = 0.502], (longer portion of the lead); [HR = 0.810: 95% CI (0.413–1.586); p = 0.537]. TLE—transvenous lead extraction; NYHA class—New York Heart Association functional class; LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction; ICD—implantable cardioverter defibrillator—single chamber (VR) or dual chamber (DR); CRT-D—cardiac resynchronisation therapy cardioverter defibrillator.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Kutarski, A.; Jacheć, W.; Polewczyk, A.; Nowosielecka, D. Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082837
AMA Style
Kutarski A, Jacheć W, Polewczyk A, Nowosielecka D. Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(8):2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082837
Chicago/Turabian StyleKutarski, Andrzej, Wojciech Jacheć, Anna Polewczyk, and Dorota Nowosielecka. 2023. "Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 8: 2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082837
APA StyleKutarski, A., Jacheć, W., Polewczyk, A., & Nowosielecka, D. (2023). Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(8), 2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082837
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
