Contributions of Advanced Techniques to the Success and Safety of Transvenous Leads Extraction

Purpose: We measured the proportion of intravascular leads, which can be extracted by simple traction versus with newer techniques, and examined the overall safety and success rate of lead extractions.
Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2007, 311 consecutive patients (mean age = 70 ± 14 years, 79% men) underwent extractions of 250 atrial, 318 ventricular, and 22 coronary sinus leads, in the surgical facilities of two experienced medical centers, under general anesthesia, at a mean of 7.2 ± 5.1 years (range 0.1–27.0) after lead implantation. Infection was the indication for extraction in 67.5% of cases. Complementary techniques were used when simple extraction with a locking stylet was unsuccessful.
Results: Simple traction, with or without a locking stylet, allowed the complete removal in 27.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.1–31.9) of patients. A mechanical sheath, laser sheath, and/or lasso catheter were used in the remaining patients. The overall extraction success rate was 89.7% (95% CI 86.3–93.1). There was one procedure-related death (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0–1.0). Among five other deaths occurring within 10 days after the procedure, four were due to septic shock. Duration of lead implantation was the strongest independent predictor of major adverse events (P = 0.002) and incomplete lead extraction (P = 0.005).
Conclusion: In contrast with simple traction, advanced techniques allowed the complete extraction of nearly 90% of leads. In experienced hands and with surgical back-up, these techniques were safe. Patients presenting with infected implanted cardiac devices suffered a high rate of major adverse despite complete extraction of the lead(s).     

Intravascular Extraction of Chronic Pacemaker Leads: Efficacy and Follow-Up

Extraction of chronic pacemaker leads has been recommended for infections, prevention of venous thrombosis, migration, and possible perforation. Success with constant traction techniques has been variable, and the cost and morbidity of open chest surgical procedures are prohibitive. Efficacy of a new system for lead extraction using intravascular techniques was analyzed. The system (Cook Pacemaker) uses a locking stylet, which is secured at the distal electrode by counterclockwise rotation to reinforce the lead and facilitate traction, and dilator sheaths that are used to free the lead from adhesions in the venous system. In a series of 56 patients (ages 19–88)who presented for lead extraction because of erosion (5), infection (14), lead replacement (35), or other (2), 86 leads were extracted. Thirty-two were atrial leads and 54 ventricular; 23 had active fixation and 63 passive. Average duration of implant was 58 ±42 months (range 1–264). Eighty-four leads were totally removed and two partially removed. For these two leads, the distal tip was not removed; in both cases the locking stylet was not secured at the distal electrode due to obstruction within the lead. Two patients developed arm edema following the procedure, which resolved with elevation. One patient developed a subclavian thrombosis, which resolved with warfarin anticoagulation. Four patients have expired due to unrelated causes. In conclusion, this intravascular approach for extraction of chronic leads is effective, and the procedure is safe when performed by experienced personnel.     

Ancillary tools in pacemaker and defibrillator lead extraction using a novel lead removal system

A previous report described our preliminary experience with a highly successful pacing lead removal system (VasoExtor). Extending this experience, we found it necessary to use additional tools to enhance the success of percutaneous lead extraction with this system. In the present series, we used the standard locking stylets (S and K), and recently, one newer type of stylet (Magic) over the last 3 years in 34 patients to extract 48 pacemaker leads in 31 patients and 3 defibrillator (ICD) leads in 3 patients. Lead extraction was carried out in 23 men and 11 women (aged 64 +/- 17 years) because of pacemaker infection (n = 21), pacemaker (n = 8) or ICD (n = 3) lead malfunction, or prior to ICD implant (n = 2). Leads were in place for 3.5 +/- 3.7 years. Infections, involving pocket and lead(s), were due to S. epidermidis (n = 13), S. aureus (n = 6), S. aureus plus E. coli (n = 1), for fungi (n = 1). Of the 48 pacing leads, 31 were ventricular, 15 atrial, and 2 were VDD leads. The ICD leads were two double-coil leads (CPI) and one single-coil lead (Telectronics). Using the S (n = 12), K (n = 8), or Magic (n = 3) stylets, all pacing leads in 23 patients and the ICD leads in 2 patients were successfully removed from a subclavian approach using the locking stylets. However, in nine (26.5%) patients ancillary tools were required. In four patients, lead fragments were captured with use of a noose catheter, a pigtail catheter, and a bioptome from a right femoral approach. In two patients, locking could not be effected and a noose catheter from the right femoral vein was used, aided by a pigtail and an Amplatz catheter and a bioptome to remove three leads. In a patient with an ICD lead, a combined subclavian (stylet S) and right femoral approach (noose catheter) was required. In a patient with a dysfunctional ventricular lead 12 years old, a motor drive unit was used to facilitate the exchange of locking stylets, but extraction failed. In another patient, a fragment of a dysfunctional ventricular lead remained intravascularly despite resorting to a femoral approach. Finally, lead removal was completely (32/34, 94%) or partially (1/34, 3%) successful in 33 (97%) of 34 patients for 50 (98%) of 51 leads without complications. In conclusion, to enhance the success of pacing or ICD lead extraction with use of the VascoExtor locking stylets, an array of ancillary tools were required in more than one fourth of patients.     

Extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: patient and lead characteristics in relation to the requirement of extraction tools

Effective tools for extraction of pacemaker and ICD leads have been developed in the past decennium. This study investigated the necessity of using these tools in addition to direct traction in relation to patient and lead characteristics. The study encompasses first attempts at extraction of consecutive pacemaker and ICD leads from the subpectoral area. A stepwise extraction protocol was used with traction first (directly or with a locking stylet) followed by laser sheath extraction if not successful. The indication, patient age, time from implant, fixation mechanism, location, and insertion site of the leads were studied in relation to the outcome of traction. A total of 145 leads in 83 patients were extracted. Leads were implanted for 71 +/- 61 months. Indication for extraction was infection in 96 leads and malfunction in 49 leads. There were 90 ventricular leads including 16 ICD leads. Forty-nine (34%) leads were extracted with traction; in 96 (66%) leads a laser sheath was necessary. All leads implanted for < 6 months could be removed with traction alone. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from implant was the main factor determining success of traction (P < 0.001), but in case of infection the success rate increased (P = 0.004). In conclusion, time from implant is the decisive factor to judge the potential efficacy of lead extraction with direct traction. If leads are implanted for 6 months, the availability of additional extraction tools is necessary when lead extraction is considered. In addition to time from implant, infected leads have a better chance to be removed with traction although it is a much weaker predictor.     

Removal of Endocardial Defibrillation Leads

Two patients, each with an endocardial defibrillation lead system (Endotak O62), required lead removal; one because of chronic lead infection and the second because of spurious shocks caused by lead insulation damage. Neither lead could be removed by simple traction. The defective lead was removed by a combination of catheterization techniques including a steerable ablation catheter and traction, both under general anesthesia. The lead with the insulation defect was rapidly removed with a locking stylet, suggesting that endocardial lead defibrillating leads can be removed similarly to pacemaker leads, thus avoid thoracotomy.     

Use of the mechanical dilator sheath for removal of endocardial leads: a single center experience

Background: Due to an increasing number of cardiac device implantations, the number of leads that need to be extracted because of infection or lead failure is consistently rising. We present our experience in percutaneous lead removal in a single tertiary center. Methods: From December 2009 to August 2010, 12 patients underwent percutaneous lead extraction procedure by the Evolution? mechanical dilator sheath (Cook Medical Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA) system after failure of manual traction and a locking stylet. Results: Ages of the patients ranged between 7 and 86 years (mean age was 58 ± 12 years). Mean implantation time was 73 months (range between 12 and 244 months). Ten patients had one lead; only two patients had two leads. Indications for lead removal were: lead endocarditis in five patients, local (pocket) infection in four patients, and lead failure in three patients. All leads were successfully removed by using the device, except one lead which was one of the two leads in a patient with dual chamber pacemaker implanted 10 years ago. In three patients, same venous accesses (sheath of extraction system) were used to implant a new lead after removal of damaged leads without a new venous puncture. In only one patient, significant hematoma was found after the intervention and treated conservatively. No other significant complications were encountered in any patients. Conclusions: Damaged or infected leads can safely and relatively easily be extracted by using this new percutaneous extraction technique. (PACE 2012; 1–5)     

Effectiveness of excimer laser-assisted pacing and ICD lead extraction in children and young adults

BACKGROUND: High capture thresholds, decreased electrical sensing, and lead fractures continue to be a problem in children undergoing transvenous pacing. The clinician must therefore decide at the time of pacing system revision to either abandon chronically implanted transvenous pacing leads or extract them. METHODS: We report our experience using an excimer laser-assisted (LA) strategy for removing chronically implanted pacing (36) and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) (7) leads in children and young adults. The study population consisted of 25 patients, in whom 29 procedures were performed. The patients ranged in age from 8.4 to 39.9 years, median age was 13.9 years, at the time of the extraction procedure. In all procedures, a Spectranectics locking stylet and excimer laser sheath were used to assist in lead extraction. RESULTS: Lead removal was complete for 39 (91%) leads, and partial for four leads. In two patients, the pacing lead tip was retained and in two, the ring electrode from a bipolar pacing lead was left in situ. All ICD leads were removed completely. Two major complications occurred--cardiac perforation and tamponade (1), and thrombosis of the left subclavian/innominate vein (1). LA extraction facilitated the implantation of new pacing or ICD leads in three patients with obstructed venous access. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of pacing and ICD leads using an excimer LA technique was highly successful. Lead removal was complete in 91%. The most common indication for lead removal in our study was lead fracture. Complications were few, but may be significant.     

Percutaneous lead and system extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices and coronary sinus leads

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device and coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction is required due to the occurrence of system infection, malfunction, or upgrade. Published series of CS lead extraction are limited by small sample sizes. We present a 10‐year experience of CRT device and CS lead extraction. Methods: All lead extractions between 2000 and 2010 were entered into a computer database. From these, a cohort of 71 cases involving a CRT device or CS lead was analyzed for procedural method, success, and complications. Results: Sixty coronary sinus leads were extracted in 71 cases (median age 71 years; 90% male) by manual traction/locking stylets (n = 54) or using a laser sheath (n = 6). Procedural success was achieved in 98% of CS leads. A total of 143 non‐CS leads were extracted, with laser required in 46% of cases. The mean duration of lead implantation was 35.8 months (range 1–116 months) and 2.86 ± 1.07 leads were extracted per case. CRT extraction case load increased significantly over time. Minor complications occurred in four (5.6%) cases and major complications in one (1.4%) case. There were no intraprocedural deaths, but two deaths occurred within 30 days of extraction. Conclusions: Our 10‐year experience confirms that percutaneous removal of CS leads can be achieved with high procedural success. Our recorded complication rates are no higher than those of non‐CS lead extraction series, and should be taken in the context of the frail nature of CRT patients. Ongoing audit of procedure success and complications will be required to further guide best practice in CS lead extraction. (PACE 2011; 34:1209–1216)     

Laser lead extraction: predictors of success and complications

BACKGROUND: Paralleling the rise in pacemaker and defibrillator implantations, lead extraction procedures are increasingly required. Concerns regarding failure and complications remain. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 200 lead extraction procedures were performed at the Montreal Heart Institute between September 2000 and August 2005. In 23 patients, all leads were removed by traction with a locking stylet. A total of 270 leads were extracted using a laser sheath system (Spectranectics, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) in 177 procedures involving 175 patients (74% male), age 62+/-16 years. Procedural indications were: infection 88 (50%), dysfunction 54 (30%), upgrade 21 (12%), and other 14 (8%). Overall, 241 leads (89%) were successfully extracted, 7 (3%) were partially extracted (< or = 4 cm retained), and 22 (8%) were non-extractable. In multivariate analyses, predictors of failed extraction were longer time from implant (OR 1.16 per year, P=0.0001) and history of hypertension (OR 5.2, P=0.0023). Acute complications occurred in 14 of 177 procedures (7.9%): 8 (4.5%) minor and 6 (3.4%) major, with one death. In multivariate analyses, the only predictor of acute complications was laser lead extraction from both right and left sides during the same procedure (OR 9.4, P = 0.0119). In addition, 3 of 10 patients with failed or partially extracted infected systems eventually required open chest explantation because of endocarditis. CONCLUSION: Most leads not amenable to manual traction may be successfully extracted by a percutaneous laser sheath system. While most complications are minor, major complications including death may occur. Older leads are at higher risk for failed extraction. Endocarditis may ensue if infected leads are incompletely removed.     

Pacemaker lead extraction with the needle's eye snare for countertraction via a femoral approach

Femoral approach pacemaker lead extraction is described as a safe and efficacious procedure. When the lead can not be removed from its myocardial insertion, the "Needle's eye snare" has become available, and it allows a femoral approach traction associated with a countertraction. Between May 1998 and May 2000, 222 lead extraction procedures were performed in 99 patients using the femoral approach. This article reports the results of the 70 lead extractions requiring the use of the Needle's eye snare for femoral approach countertraction in 39 patients with a total of 82 leads. The indications were infection, accufix leads and lead dysfunction in 56, 1 and 6 leads, respectively. The age of the leads was 113 +/- 56 months. Sixty-one (87.2%) leads were successfully extracted, the extraction was incomplete in 3 (4.3%) cases and failed in 6 (8.5%) cases. The failures were due to leads totally excluded from the venous flow for four leads, the impossibility of advancing the 16 Fr long sheath through the right and left iliac veins for one lead and one traction induced a nontolerated ventricular arrhythmia. In these cases, an extraction by a simple upper traction had been attempted in another center several months before. The complications included two deaths and one transient ischemia of the right inferior limb. Despite the selection of a series of leads for which an extraction by a simple traction on the proximal end of the lead was impossible or unsuccessful, femoral countertraction seems to be a safe and efficacious procedure. The failure of this technique occurred in patients with damaged leads due to a previous extraction procedure performed in centers with limited experience in lead extraction.     

First European Experience Using Excimer Laser for the Extraction of Permanent Pacemaker Leads

An Excimer Laser system for the extraction of permanent pacemaker leads has been developed by Spectranetics Inc. and Dr. Charles L. Byrd. The laser energy is emitted at the tip of a flexible, fiberoptic 12F sheath that permits the removal of leads with a max outer diameter of 7.1F. The CVX-300 Excimer Laser source is a xenon chloride laser with an output of 308 nm not visible to the human eye. This cool cutting laser has an absorption depth of 0.06 mm, the energy being absorbed by proteins and lipids. In clinical practice this means that the fibrotic sheaths usually surrotinding the leads can be cut without damaging the endothelial wall or the insulation of leads, due to these characteristics the sheath can, however, not pass over tines. For the freeing of lead tips, locking stylets and outer sheaths are combined to perform counter traction. Results: From 8/96 to 5/97 50 leads (38 atrial, 12 ventricular) from 45 patients (22 females, 23 males, mean age 65.1 years, range 32–94) were extracted using the Excimer Laser at our institution. Mean lead implantation time was 47.7 months (range 10.5–351.7). Indication for extraction was suspected J-wire fracture in 16 leads, prophylactic in 8 leads, infection in 12 leads, exit block in 4 leads and other reasons in 10 leads. Mean extraction time, excluding reimplantation, was 10 minutes (range 1–50). The objective of the procedure (normally complete lead removal) was accomplished in all cases but three. All intended lead replacements were successful. No complications occurred. All patients left the hospital in good condition, one patient died, within 30 days due to progressive heart failure. Conclusions: Lead extraction with Excimer Laser seems to be a safe and efficacious procedure. However, due to the inherent risks appropriate training and experience are essential. If the initial promising results can be maintained, indications for the removal of permanent pacing leads may widen considerably.     

Intravascular Lead Extraction Using Locking Stylets and Sheaths

BYRD, C.L., ET AL.: 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.     

Fibrotic tissue growth into the extendable lobes of an active fixation coronary sinus lead can complicate extraction

Extraction of passive fixation coronary sinus (CS) leads is typically easily achieved with manual traction. The ability to readily extract active fixation leads from the CS is less clear. Our first extraction experience with an active fixation CS lead was in a 58-year-old man with a 13-month-old Medtronic 4195 lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The lobes of the lead would not fully undeploy. Significant, prolonged manual traction was required to free the lead from the cardiac vein. Inspection demonstrated fibrotic tissue growth into the lead lobes. Such growth may lead to an increase in extraction complications and failures.     

The Dotter Retriever and Pigtail Catheter: Efficacy in Extraction of Chronic Transvenous Pacemaker Leads

Several techniques exist for percutaneous extraction of chronic pacemaker leads. To establish the efficacy of the Dotter retriever and pigtail catheter, we reviewed the removal of 59 endocardial pacemaker leads in 42 patients (mean age 71 years). The mean duration of lead implantation was 44 months (range 1–169 months). Thirty-two leads were withdrawn with simple traction alone, and five leads were abandoned when traction failed. The remaining 22 leads were manipulated with a Dotter retriever or pigtail catheter, or both. Twelve leads were dislodged from the endocardium with simple traction (10)or with traction transmitted through an entwining pigtail catheter (2), but they could not be fully withdraivn. Eleven of these leads (92%)were then successfully extracted with the Dotter retriever. Seven of the remaining 10 leads were successfully disJodged and removed by the Dotter retriever. Overall, 9 of 12 leads (75%)that could not be dislodged from the endocardium with simple traction were removed with a Dotter retriever or pigtail catheter, or both. Three patients in whom no catheter method worked required thoracotomy for removal of infected leads. No complications resulted from use of the Dotter retriever or pigtail catheter. We conclude that the Dotter retriever and pigtail catheter have moderate efficacy for dislodging chronic endocardial leads. Once mobilized, however, the leads can be withdrawn with great success with the Dotter retriever. Newer technology should not result in the abandonment of this proven technique.     

Malfunction of an Active Fixation J-Shaped Screw-In Atrial Electrode Lead: A Case Report

Active fixation leads, using active grasping devices, ensure good postoperative lead fixation, long-term performance, and make possible later lead removal on demand. However, these delicate designs have not been without practical difficulties. We present two cases of fixation stylet fracture during helix extension and retraction maneuver respectively with resultant lead inoperability and abandonment. The fixed leads could be removed by torquing the entire lead counterclockwise.     

Two‐year extractability of novel left ventricular,active fixation leads in the sheep model

1 Background

A cardiac lead with a side helix for active fixation to the coronary vein wall (Attain Stability^®, Model 20066, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) recently received CE Mark. The lead is designed to improve left ventricular (LV) placement and reduce dislodgement rates. The extractability of this active fixation LV lead has not been studied extensively.

2 Methods

Seventeen sheep were implanted with either an LV lead with a side helix (Model 20066, Model 20096, Medtronic) or a unipolar LV lead (Model 4193, Medtronic) as a control. Leads were extracted at approximately 26, 52, or 118 weeks. Standard extraction methodology was employed with quantitative traction up to 907 g (2 lbs.) using a locking stylet. Gross pathology and histology of the heart with particular attention to the lead tracts were performed.

3 Results

All leads were successfully removed in their entirety and required significantly less than 1 kg of traction force. The side helix disengaged from the vein as designed and resulted in no complications. No cardiac tissue was observed on any extracted lead. Gross pathology and histology were devoid of any helix‐induced lesions in the vascular structures. The epicardium over the side helix was normal and the fibrotic reaction around the helix was not significantly different from that around the nonhelix portions of the study leads or the control lead.

4 Conclusion

Extraction of the side helix, active fixation LV lead from the coronary veins in the sheep model is safe, without procedural complexity, and free of complications after long‐term LV lead implant duration.     

Contemporary pacemaker and ICD lead management: techniques for lead extraction

With the increasing utilization of cardiac implantable electronic devices, the ability to extract leads using the transvenous approach has become important. Devices that are infected and leads that pose a risk to the patient by causing damage to cardiovascular structures, interference with device function or life-threatening arrhythmias should be removed. While the majority of extractions are performed through the vein of implantation, other approaches, such as the femoral approach, are required in some circumstances. Simple traction may be successful in removing the lead in relatively new (<1 year) implants. Older devices invariably require devices such as locking stylets and simple or powered sheaths. With current techniques, complete lead extraction can be achieved in >90% of cases with a major complication rate of <2% and mortality rate of <1%. Transvenous lead extraction should be performed only by experienced operators with the resources to address life-threatening complications.     

Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction

TYERS, G.F.O., et al .: Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction. Complications are reported more frequently with the implantation of coronary sinus (CS) than other types of leads, and attempts to extract CS leads may also be associated with increased risks. The authors have performed nonthoracotomy lead extraction (LE) since 1981 and maintained a detailed database. By November 2001, 796 leads had been removed from 401 patients. We undertook review of our CS-LE experience to evaluate prevalence, safety, and efficacy. Of 14 patients referred for CS-LE, 7 were treated in the last year. In six the lead had been placed in the CS intentionally, and in eight inadvertently. One recent patient treated with biventricular pacing was septic and died before LE was undertaken. In nine men and four women (mean age 66 years) had one each CS lead and a total of 34 LEs (2.6/patient). Four CS leads had been in place for <6 months (mean 1.5 month), whereas nine had been in place for between 6 months and 27 years. Several LE methods were used, from simple traction to the use of intraluminal locking stylets and powered sheaths. Complete removal of all leads was achieved in all patients. CS-LE required a mean of 13 minutes, including 1.8 minutes of fluoroscopy. There were no serious complications during the procedures, and the mean hospital stay was 4 days. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:524–526)     

Contemporary pacemaker and ICD lead management: techniques for lead extraction

With the increasing utilization of cardiac implantable electronic devices, the ability to extract leads using the transvenous approach has become important. Devices that are infected and leads that pose a risk to the patient by causing damage to cardiovascular structures, interference with device function or life-threatening arrhythmias should be removed. While the majority of extractions are performed through the vein of implantation, other approaches, such as the femoral approach, are required in some circumstances. Simple traction may be successful in removing the lead in relatively new (<1 year) implants. Older devices invariably require devices such as locking stylets and simple or powered sheaths. With current techniques, complete lead extraction can be achieved in >90% of cases with a major complication rate of <2% and mortality rate of <1%. Transvenous lead extraction should be performed only by experienced operators with the resources to address life-threatening complications.     

Intravascular Extraction of Problematic or Infected Permanent Pacemaker Leads: 1994–1996

Of the 400,000-500,000 permanent pacemaker leads implanted worldwide each year, around 10% may eventually fail or become infected, becoming potential candidates for removal. Intravascular techniques for removing problematic or infected leads evolved over a 5-year period (1989-1993). This article analyzes results from January 1994 through April 1996, a period during which techniques were fairly stable. Extraction of 3,540 leads from 2,338 patients was attempted at 226 centers. Indications were: infection (27%), nonfunctional or incompatible leads (25%), Accufix or Encore leads (46%), or other causes (2%). Patients were 64+/-17 years of age (range 5-96); 59% were men, 41% women. Leads were implanted 47+/-41 months (maximum 26 years), in the atrium (53%), ventricle (46%), or SVC (1%). Extraction was attempted via the implant vein using locking stylets and dilator sheaths, and/or transfemorally using snares, retrieval baskets, and sheaths. Complete removal was achieved for 93% of leads, partial for 5%, and 2% were not removed. Risk of incomplete or failed extraction increased with implant duration (P<0.0001), less experienced physicians (P<0.0001), ventricular leads (P<0.005), noninfected patients (P<0.0005), and younger patients (P<0.0001). Major complications were reported for 1.4% of patients (<1% at centers with >300 cases), minor for 1.7%. Risk of complications increased with number of leads removed (P<0.005) and with less experienced physicians (P<0.005); risk of major complications was higher for women (P<0.01). Given physician experience, appropriate precautions, and appropriate patient selection, contemporary lead removal techniques allow success with low complication rates.