Procedural outcomes and long-term survival associated with lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads.

BACKGROUND: The decision to abandon or extract superfluous sterile leads is controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare procedural outcomes and long-term survival of patients with and those without abandoned leads undergoing lead extraction (LE). METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients who had undergone transvenous LE at our institution from January 2007 to May 2016 was performed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of abandoned leads. RESULTS: Among 774 patients who had undergone LE procedures, 38 (4.9%) had abandoned leads (group 1). Dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was longer in group 1 vs group 2 (7.6 ± 4.9 years vs 5.6 ± 4.4 years; P = .017), as was infection as an indication for LE (76% vs 33%; P <.001). A bailout femoral approach was more commonly required in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs 6%; P = .007). Complete procedural success rates were similar (92.1% in group 1 vs 95.0% in group 2; P = .439), but there was a trend toward lower clinical success in group 1 (92.1% vs 97.4%; P = .088), primarily due to failure to remove all hardware in the setting of infection. Major procedural complication rates were similar (2.6% in group 1 vs 1.2% in group 2; P = .397), as was long-term survival (mean follow-up 2.3 ± 2.2 years). CONCLUSION: Abandoned leads at the time of LE were associated with increased procedural complexity, including a higher rate of bailout femoral extraction, and may be associated with lower clinical success. Among appropriately selected patients, consideration should be given to LE instead of abandonment.

Procedural outcomes and long-term survival following lead extraction in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: Octogenarians account for a significant percentage of patients with indwelling pacemakers or defibrillators. OBJECTIVES: To determine procedural outcomes and long-term survival after lead extraction (LE) in octogenarians. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent defibrillator or pacemaker LE at our institution between January 1, 2007 and May 31, 2016. Patients were stratified based on age into two groups: <80 years old (Group 1, n = 674) or ≥80 (Group 2, n = 100). Outcomes were determined by medical records review and query of the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: Patients in Group 2 were more likely to be hypertensive (77% vs 61%, P = 0.02), more like to have coronary artery disease (50% vs 39%, P = 0.049), and more likely to be extracted for infectious indications (47% vs 33%, P = .009). The number of leads extracted per procedure was 2.0 ± 0.8 and the mean dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was 5.6 ± 4.3 years, without significant differences between groups. Extraction procedure success (Group 1: 94.7%, Group 2: 96%, P = 0.808) and procedural deaths (Group 1: 0.9% vs Group 2: 0%, P = 1.0) were similar. There was no significant difference in survival up to 3 years following LE between groups. CONCLUSION: At experienced centers, LE can be performed safely in octogenarians with procedural success rates and long-term survival comparable to younger individuals.

Outcomes of lead extraction in young adults.

BACKGROUND: Extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads in young adults may be technically challenging because of more extensive fibrosis and calcification in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes of lead extraction (LE) in young adults at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent LE at our institution between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2016. Patients were divided by age into 2 groups: <40 years (group 1, n = 84) or ≥40 years (group 2, n = 690). Outcomes were determined by medical records review. RESULTS: Patients in group 2 had a higher overall average number of leads extracted per procedure compared to group 1 (1.64 ± 0.80 vs 1.45 ± 0.64; P <.001). Lead dwell time was similar in the 2 groups (5.7 ± 5 years vs 5.6 ± 4.3 years; P = .95). The younger cohort tended to require femoral extraction techniques more frequently (9.5% vs 4.4%; P = .055). Extraction procedural success (group 1: 94.1%, group 2: 94.9%; P = .792), major complications (group 1: 0%, group 2: 1.3%; P = 1), and periprocedural mortality (group 1: 0%, group 2: 0.86%; P = 1) were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: LE can be performed safely and effectively in young adults. Despite the lower number of leads extracted per procedure and the similar lead dwell time, younger adults more frequently required the use of femoral extraction tools, thus highlighting the importance of performing these procedures in centers with advanced expertise in extraction techniques.

Predictors and outcomes of lead extraction requiring a bailout femoral approach: Data from 2 high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Lead extraction (LE) infrequently requires the use of the "bailout" femoral approach. Predictors and outcomes of femoral extraction are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of need for femoral LE and its outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LE at our centers were identified. Baseline demographic characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were ascertained by medical record review. Patients were stratified into 2 groups on the basis of the need for femoral extraction. RESULTS: A total of 1080 patients underwent LE, of whom 50 (4.63%) required femoral extraction. Patients requiring femoral extraction were more likely to have leads with longer dwell time (9.5 ± 6.0 years vs 5.7 ± 4.3 years; P < .001), to have more leads extracted per procedure (2.0 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 0.9; P = .003), and to have infection as an indication for extraction (72% vs 37.2%; P < .001). Procedural and clinical success was lower in the femoral extraction group than in the nonfemoral group (58% and 76% vs 94.7% and 97.9 %, respectively; P < .001). Major periprocedural complications (0% vs 1.3%; P = 1.0) and periprocedural mortality (0% vs 0.8%; P = 1.0) were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, femoral extraction was needed in ~5% of LEs. Longer lead dwell time, higher number of leads extracted per procedure, and the presence of infection predicted the need for femoral extraction. Procedural success of femoral extraction was low, highlighting the fact that this approach is mostly used as a bailout strategy and thus selects for more challenging cases.