4.1 Article

Large, Single-Center Experience in Transvenous Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: Procedural Outcomes and Predictors for Mechanical Dilatation

Journal

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 215-222

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03273.x

Keywords

resynchronization therapy; transvenous lead extraction; coronary sinus lead

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate procedural outcomes of coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction, focusing on predictors and need for mechanical dilatation (MD) in the event that manual traction (MT) is ineffective. Methods: The study assessed results in 145 consecutive patients (age 69 +/- 10 years; 121 men)-a total of 147 CS pacing leads-who underwent transvenous CS lead removal between January 2000 and March 2010. Results: All leads but one (99%) (implantation time 29 +/- 25 months) were successfully removed. MT was effective in 103 (70%), and MD was necessary in the remaining 44 (30%) procedures. In multivariate analyses, unipolar design (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.7; P = 0.005) and noninfective indication (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13, P = 0.002) were independent predictors for MD (P < 0.0001), with a predictive trend for prior cardiac surgery (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.98-5.26; P = 0.06). Five (3.4%) complex procedures required a transfemoral vein approach (TFA) or repeat procedure. No deaths occurred, and there was one major complication (0.7%), cardiac tamponade, after MT. No complication predictors were identified. Conclusions: CS leads were safely and effectively removed in nearly all patients, and 70% were removed with MT alone; 30% required MD. Preoperative predictors suggesting the need for MD or TFA were noninfective indication and unipolar lead design. Complications were rare, and there was no predictable pattern among MT or MD removal techniques. (PACE 2012; 35:215-222)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available