Recommendations for extraction of chronically implanted transvenous pacing and defibrillator leads: indications, facilities, training. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology Lead Extraction Conference Faculty.

The procedure of lead removal has recently matured into a definable, teachable art with its own specific tools and techniques. It is now time to recognize and formalize the practice of lead removal according to the current methods of medicine and the health care industry. In addition, since at this time the only prospective scientific study of lead extraction is the PLEXES trial, we suggest that studies relating to the techniques of and indications for lead extraction be designed. Recommendations for a common set of definitions, for a framework of training and reviewing physicians in the art, for general methods of reimbursement, and for consistency among clinical trials have been made. Implementation of these recommendations will require additional effort and cooperation from practicing physicians, medical societies, hospital administrations, and industry.

Development of a new technique for explantation of chronic transvenous pacemaker leads: five initial case studies.

Transvenous removal of chronic pacing leads was attempted using a special locking stylet and dilator sheaths. In five initial cases, three of seven leads were infected; six of seven leads were removed. The stylet was inserted into the conductor lumen and locked into the tip to reinforce and control the lead, permitting retraction without stretching the conductor. Sheaths were advanced over the lead to detach and dilate fibrous encapsulation. In one case, force applied exceeded the locking mechanism's strength; no patient complication resulted. It is concluded that transvenous lead removal is facilitated by a locking stylet and dilation of fibrous tissue with sheaths.

Intravascular lead extraction using locking stylets, sheaths, and other techniques.

UNLABELLED: Septicemia necessitates extraction of chronic pacemaker leads. Using locking stylets and sheaths to extract leads via the implantation vein (subclavian, cephalic, or jugular) and maneuvering devices, sheaths, and retrieval baskets via the femoral approach, extraction of 228 leads implanted 5 days to 240 months (mean 55 months) was attempted in 136 patients (mean 62 years) at 34 institutions. In addition to septicemia (9%) and infection (39%), total 48%, indications included prophylaxis/replacement (40%), and other (12%). Seventy-seven leads were atrial, 151 ventricular; 147 were unipolar, 81 bipolar; 96 had silicone insulation, 127 polyurethane, 1 poly/silicone, and 2 undetermined. Fixation included tines or fins (160), screw (40), flange (12), and other (16). One hundred and ninety-four leads were completely extracted, 19 partly extracted, and 15 not extracted. Procedural complications were: torn atrium requiring open heart repair (1), hemothorax requiring a chest tube and blood transfusions (1), subacute hemothorax requiring drainage 18 days after discharge (1), thrombosis treated by drugs (1), and myocardial avulsion without sequela (1). Important observations included the significant training required due to the large number of possible clinical variables, and the need to be prepared for life-threatening cardiovascular complications. With training, procedures done at higher volume and lower volume institutions met with similar success. CONCLUSION: Intravascular lead extraction is a viable technique whose benefits outweigh the risks, given the proper intensive training and open heart surgical backup, and may obviate the need for open heart surgery for lead extraction.

Intravascular lead extraction using locking stylets and sheaths.

Chronic lead extraction using intravascular countertraction techniques was studied in patients with over 65 different lead models including passive and active fixation devices. Indications for removal of 115 leads implanted 5 days to 264 months (mean 58 months) in 62 patients (mean 65 years) included septicemia, subcutaneous tissue infection, preerosion, free-floating lead, lead trapped in valve, too many leads, pain, and vein thrombosis. The superior vena cava (SVC) approach was attempted in 101 leads and was successful in 82 attempts (71% of total leads). The inferior vena cava (IVC) approach via the femoral vein was required to extract 14 (12%) leads inaccessible to the SVC approach and the 19 leads that failed the SVC approach (29% of total leads). The SVC procedure includes a sized stylet locked at the tip and telescoping sheaths advanced over the lead to the heart. An IVC procedure includes placement of a 16 F sheath workstation via a femoral vein into the right atrium. A deflection catheter and Dotter snare in an 11 F sheath were advanced through the workstation into the right atrium. The lead was maneuvered into position, snared, and pulled into the workstation. For both the SVC and IVC approaches, the leads were removed by applying traction on the lead and countertraction with the sheaths. In experienced hands, these techniques have proven safe and effective for removing chronic transvenous leads.