Search

Background: Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are well reported in the general population, However, data on safety, efficacy of TLE in octogenarians with a long lead dwell time, using powered extraction tools are limited. The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness of TLE in octogenarians using the bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths and mid-term outcome after TLE., Methods: The study population comprised 83 patients (78.3% male; mean age 85 ± 3 years; [range 80-94 years]) with 181 target leads. All the leads (mean implant duration 112 ± 77 months [range 12-377]) were extracted exclusively using the Evolution RL sheaths (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA)., Results: The main indication for TLE was infection in 84.3% of cases. Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, per lead were 93.9% and 98.3%, respectively. Failure of lead extraction was seen in 1.7% of leads. The additional use of a snare was required in 8.4% of patients. Major complications occurred in one patient (1.2%). Thirty-day mortality after TLE was 6%. During a mean time follow-up of 22 ± 21 months, 24 patients (29%) died. No procedure-related mortality occurred. Predictors of mortality included ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 4.35; 95% CI 1.87-10.13; p = .001), left ventricularejection fraction ≤35% (HR 7.89; 95% CI 3.20-19.48; p < .001), and TLE for systemic infection (HR 4.24; 95% CI 1.69-10.66; p = .002)., Conclusions: At experienced centers bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths combined with different mechanical tools and femoral approach allowreasonable success and safety in octogenarian with long lead dwell time. Patient's age should not influence the decision to extract or not the leads, although the 30-day and mid-term mortality are significant, especially in the present of specific comorbidities., (© 2023 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Recent studies have shown that Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is an effective and safe technique for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We reported our experience with the bidirectional rotational mechanical tools using a multidisciplinary approach highlighting the value of a joint cardiac surgeon and electrophysiologist collaboration., Methods: The study population comprised 84 patients (77% male; mean age 65 ± 18 years) undergoing TLE. After a multidisciplinary evaluation, a combined procedure was considered., Results: The main indication for TLE was infection in 54 cases (64%). Overall, 152 leads were extracted with a mean implant duration of 94 ± 63 months (range 12-421). Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, and lead removal with clinical success rate were 91.6% (77/84), 97.6% (82/84), and 98.6% (150/152), respectively. Eighteen combined procedures were performed in 12 patients (14%), such as "hybrid approach" (n = 2) or TLE concomitant to: 1) transcatheter aspiration procedure for large vegetation (n = 8); 2) left ventricular assistance device implantation as bridge to cardiac transplantation (n = 1); 3) permanent pacing with epicardial leads (n = 6); 4) tricuspid valve replacement (n = 1). One major complication (1.2%) and 11 (13%) minor complications were encountered. No injury to the superior vena cava occurred and no procedure-related deaths were reported. During a mean time follow-up of 21 ± 18 months, 17 patients (20%) died. They were more often diabetics (p = .02), and they underwent TLE more often for infection (p = .004)., Conclusions: Our results support the finding that excellent outcomes can be achieved in performing TLE of chronically implanted leads by using the Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath and a multidisciplinary team approach involving both electrophysiologist and cardiac surgeon as first line operators., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Axillary vein access (AVA) using fluoroscopic landmarks is an effective and safe approach for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. However, it may result in a higher radiation exposure. Ultrasound-guided axillary access (USAA) is an effective alternative technique to conventional subclavian access for CIEDs implantation. Studies comparing USAA and AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and radiation exposure data of the USAA approach with the AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks., Methods: The study population included 95 consecutive patients (61% male, median age 78 years [71-85 years]) referred for CIEDs implantation using AVA with fluoroscopic landmark (n = 46) or USAA (n = 49). Baseline characteristics and radiation exposure data (Air-Kerma [mGy], DAP [Gy-cm 2 ], fluoroscopy time [seconds], and X-rays emission time [seconds]) were compared according to the technique used for the AVA., Results: Axillary vein was successfully accessed in 45 of 49 (92%) patients using ultrasound and in 42 of 46 (91%) patients using fluoroscopic landmarks (P = 1.00). Air-Kerma, DAP, fluoroscopy time, and X-rays emission time were shorter for USAA group compared with AVA using fluoroscopic landmarks (11 mGy [8-20] vs 37 mGy [24-81], P < .00001; 3 Gy-cm 2 [2-5] vs 10 Gy-cm 2 [6-16], P < .00001; 97 seconds [62-163] vs 271 seconds [185-365], P < .00001; and 7 seconds [4-10] vs 21 seconds [13-39], P < .00001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in median implant procedure time (P = .55). We did not encounter any acute or long-term complications in both groups., Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided axillary vein cannulation for CIEDs implantation is a feasible and safe alternative approach and offers a significant reduction in fluoroscopy times without increasing procedural time., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In addition to the Evolution RL sheath, tools by Cook Medical (Bloomington, IN, USA), supporting lead extraction (LE), are available. Data on their use are not reported in detail in previous studies. Moreover, data regarding outcome are lacking. The aim was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Evolution sheath (Evolution RL and Evolution Shortie, Cook Medical) by using a stepwise approach with the available extraction tools and the outcome., Methods: A total of 393 leads in 198 consecutive patients were removed with the Evolution RL sheath and ancillary tools using a stepwise approach., Results: The main indication for LE was infection in 125 (63.1%) cases. The mean implant duration was 95.4 ± 59.7 months. According to our stepwise approach, the Evolution Shortie RL sheath was used in all cases and complete LE was achieved in 24 (12.2%) cases. The Evolution RL was used in 174 (87.8%) cases and the SteadySheath Evolution tissue stabilization sheath (Cook Medical) in 87 (44%) because of tenacious fibrosis anchored targeted leads. Compression coil (OneTie, Cook Medical) was used in 141 (71%) cases. Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, and lead removal with clinical success rate were 97%, 99%, and 99.5%, respectively. One major complication (0.5%) and 10 (5%) minor complications were encountered. During a mean time follow-up of 12 ± 9 months, 14 (7%) patients died. Predictors of mortality included impaired renal function (HR 5.7; 95% CI 1.9-17.6; P = 0.002), extraction because of infection (hazard ratio [HR] 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1-18.1; P = 0.045), and diabetes (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1-9.8; P = 0.036)., Conclusions: Lead extraction using the Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath and ancillary tools in a systematic stepwise approach was effective and safe., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in the elderly is uncertain, given their competing risk of nonarrhythmic death. Guidelines state that an ICD should be implanted if the expectation of survival is at least 1 year. However, survival is not easy to predict in elderly patients with severe cardiac disease., Aim: To assess 12-month survival after ICD implantation in patients aged ≥75 years, to identify predictors of 12-month mortality, and to evaluate the incidence of ICD therapy during follow-up., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all clinical, instrumental, and survival data of patients ≥75 years old who received an ICD in our center from 2000 to 2013., Results: We included 127 patients (mean age 78 years). ICD was implanted for primary prevention in 61%. The 12-month survival rate was 87.4%. At both univariate and multivariate analyses, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 25%, and moderate to severe impaired renal function (IRF) independently predicted 12-month mortality that was as high as 45.5% in patients with both risk factors. During a median follow-up of 38 months, 30 patients (23.6%) received ≥1 appropriate ICD interventions, but only 3.1% of shocks occurred during the first year, and none in the subgroup of patients with EF ≤ 25% and IRF., Conclusion: Twelve-month survival in elderly patients after ICD implantation is good and the indication for ICD should not be based on age alone. However, the subgroup with EF ≤ 25% and IRF showed a high 12-month nonarrhythmic mortality and did not benefit from ICD implantation., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Cardiac perforation of the right ventricle (RV) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of both pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant. Appropriate management is still uncertain. We assessed the incidence of subacute (24 hours-1 month) or delayed (>1 month) cardiac perforation by RV lead and the results of percutaneous lead extraction., Method: The study population included all patients diagnosed with subacute or delayed RV-lead perforation during the period 2007-2013. The incidence of perforation according to device type and fixation mechanism was calculated. The outcome of the percutaneous approach, consisting of lead extraction by simple traction, was assessed., Results: Cardiac perforation was diagnosed in 14 (eight females, mean age 71 [range 47-83] years) patients out of 3,815 who received an RV-lead implant (0.4%). The overall incidence of RV-lead perforation was similar between ICD (0.3%) and PM (0.4%) implants (P = 1.0) and between active (0.5%) and passive (0.3%) fixation leads (P = 0.3). All perforating leads were originally placed at the RV apex. Five patients were asymptomatic, but all presented altered lead electrical parameters. Surgical removal of the lead was performed in one patient while in the remaining the leads were successfully extracted by direct manual traction in the absence of any complications. In all patients, new active fixation leads were positioned in the RV septum and the follow-up (42 ± 27 months) was uneventful., Conclusions: RV perforation is a rare complication of both PM and ICD implants, regardless of the lead fixation mechanism. In most patients, percutaneous lead extraction is a safe and effective management approach., (©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)