RESUMO
Background: The impact of lead fixation mechanism on extractability is poorly characterized. Objective: We aimed to compare the technical difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of active vs passive fixation right ventricular (RV) leads. Methods: A total of 408 patients who underwent RV TLE by a single expert electrophysiologist at Oregon Health & Science University between October 2011 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively analyzed; 331 (81%) had active fixation RV leads and 77 (19%) had passive fixation RV leads. The active fixation cohort was further stratified into those with successfully retracted helices (n = 181) and failed helix retraction (n = 109). A numerical system (0-9) devised using 6 procedural criteria quantified a technical extraction score (TES) for each RV TLE. The TES was compared between groups. Results: Helix retraction was successful in ≥55% of active fixation TLEs. The mean TES for active-helix retracted, active-helix non-retracted, and passive fixation groups was 1.8, 3.5, and 3.7, respectively. The TES of the active-helix retracted group was significantly lower than those of the active-helix non-retracted group (adjusted P < .01) and the passive fixation group (adjusted P < .01). There was no significant difference in TES between the passive fixation and active-helix non-retracted groups in multivariate analysis (P = .18). The TLE success rate of the entire cohort was >97%, with a major complication rate of 0.5%. Conclusion: TLE of active fixation leads where helical retraction is achieved presents fewer technical challenges than does passive fixation RV lead extraction; however, if the helix cannot be retracted, active and passive TLE procedures present similar technical challenges.
RESUMO
Background Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and their treatment have been associated with psychological distress and diminished quality of life (QOL). We administered a battery of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to patients seeing an electrophysiologist and psychologist in a multidisciplinary VA clinic for patients referred for consideration of catheter ablation for sustained VAs or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies. Methods and Results In this retrospective study of the initial VA clinic visit, we analyzed PROMs of: anxiety and depression symptoms, visual analog scales for physical health status and quality of life, cardiac anxiety, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator acceptance, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock anxiety. We quantitated baseline PROM score means and performed correlation analysis with clinical makers of cardiac and VA disease severity. We also performed an item-level analysis of each PROM question to quantify most frequent patient concerns. A total of 66 patients (56±15 years; 77% men) were included; 70% had prior implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, and 44% with prior VA ablation. Elevated symptoms of anxiety (53%) and depression (20%) were common. Younger patients had greater symptom burden of general health anxiety, cardiac anxiety, and shock anxiety, and lower device acceptance, but indices of VA burden such as number of ICD shocks and time since last ICD shock did not predict anxiety or depression. Item-level review of cardiac-specific PROMs revealed that >40% of patients expressed concern regarding resumption of physical activity, sex and employment. Conclusions Clinicians can expect elevated symptoms of depression, and cardiac and device-related anxiety among patients with VAs. Routine use of PROMs may elicit these symptoms, which were otherwise not predicted by arrhythmia burden. Review of individual PROM items can facilitate targeting specific patient concerns, which commonly involved physical activity.
