Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools.

Background: Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature. Methods: Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures. Results: A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free‐floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long‐term mortality. Conclusions: (1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success—57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]