3.8 Article

Predictors of lead break during transvenous lead extraction

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARRHYTHMIA
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 645-652

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12524

Keywords

coradial lead; lead break; pacemaker lead; passive lead; transvenous lead extraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of lead break during transvenous lead extraction. Results showed that high lead age, coradial bipolar leads, passive leads, and leads without polyurethane insulation were predictors of lead break, leading to longer procedure times and higher rates of cardiac tamponade.
Background The incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of lead break during transvenous lead extraction (TLE) were previously unknown. Methods We included consecutive patients who underwent TLE between September 2013 and July 2019 at our institute. Lead break during removal was defined as lead stretching and becoming misshapen, as assessed by fluoroscopy. Results A total of 246 patients underwent TLE for 501 leads. At a patient level, complete success was achieved in 226 patients (91.9%). At a lead level, 481 leads (96.0%) were completely removed and 101 leads (20.1%) were broken during the procedure. Of 392 identified pacemaker leads, 71 (18.3%) were broken during the TLE procedure. A multivariable analysis confirmed high lead age (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.17; P < .001), passive leads (OR 2.29 95% CI 1.09-4.80; P = .028), coradial leads (OR 3.45 95% CI 1.72-6.92; P < .001), and insulators made of nonpolyurethane (OR 2.38 95% CI 1.03-5.26; P = .04) as predictors of lead break. Broken leads needed longer procedure times and were associated with a higher rate of cardiac tamponade. Conclusions Lead age, coradial bipolar leads, passive leads, and leads without polyurethane insulation were predictors of lead break and could increase the difficulty of lead extraction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available