Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Defibrillator Leads Using the VascoExtor Pacing Lead Removal System

In the implantable cardioverter defibrillator era the necessity for lead removal is not negligible. A specially designed extraction lead system for percutaneous removal of such leads is lacking, in contrast to the existing pacing lead extraction systems. We report the successful percutaneous extraction of four implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads in three patients because of lead malfunction using a novel pacemaker lead extraction system, the VascoExtor (VascoMed) system. Three leads were successfully removed in two patients using traction with special locking stylets from the superior approach. One lead was removed using the system's additional extraction tools through the femoral approach. There were no complications. This preliminary experience shows that the VascoExtor (VascoMed) pacemaker lead extraction system can also be used in implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead extraction safely and effectively. In addition to the locking stylets, adjunct percutaneous extraction tools may be needed in some cases.     

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Octogenarians

Transvenous Lead Extraction . Introduction: As the population ages, the number of elderly patients with implantable cardiac devices referred for transvenous lead extraction will dramatically increase in Western countries. The safety and effectiveness of lead extraction in elderly patients has not been well evaluated. We report the safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction in octogenarians. Methods and Results: From January 2005 to January 2011, we reviewed data from consecutive patients ≥ 80 years referred to our institutions for transvenous lead extraction because of cardiac device infection or lead malfunction. Clinical characteristics, procedural features, and periprocedural major and minor complications were compared between octogenarians and younger patients. Out of 849 patients undergoing lead extraction in the participating institutions during the study period, 150 (18%) patients were octogenarians (mean age 84 years; range 80–96; 64% males). A significantly higher percentage of octogenarians presented with chronic renal failure (55% vs 26%; P < 0.001), history of malignancy (22% vs 6%; P < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (46% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Complete lead extraction rates were similar in the 2 age groups (97% in octogenarians vs 96% in patients <80 years; P = 0.39). Periprocedural death occurred in 2 (1.3%) patients ≥80 years and in 5 (0.72%) patients <80 years (P = 0.45 for comparison). No differences in terms of other periprocedural major and minor complications were found between the 2 age groups. Conclusion: Despite presenting with a significantly higher rate of comorbidities, transvenous lead extraction can be performed safely and successfully in octogenarians. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23 pp. 1103‐1108, October 2012)     

A Novel Indication for Transvenous Lead Extraction: Upgrading Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems

Technological advances have resulted in the development of dual chamber pacemaker/defibrillator systems with smaller pectoral 'active cans'. Patients now have the option of upgrading from abdominal to pectoral or from single to dual chamber devices. In addition, due to the potential complications which may arise with abandoned ICD leads, extraction of preexisting leads may be preferable.Methods and Results: Twenty consecutive patients (11 males), underwent lead extraction and upgrade, either from an abdominal to a pectoral, or from a single to a dual chamber device. The mean age was 62±18[emsp4 ]years and mean implant duration was 50±14 months. Indications for extraction included lead fracture/malfunction (13), ERI/EOL (2), new SVT/VT (2), long charge times (2), and impending erosion (1). An initial attempt was made to remove the lead with gentle traction. If excessive scar tissue prohibited extraction, then a laser sheath was employed. Reimplantation proceeded following standard protocol.Clinical success was achieved in all patients. Eleven of thirty leads were removed with traction. The remaining 19 leads required removal with the laser sheath. All ICD reimplants were placed in the left pectoral position, of which 10 were dual chamber. The mean defibrillation threshold was 9.5±5.8 Joules. There were no procedure related perforations or deaths. At follow up (13±10 mos.) there were no infections, lead malfunctions or venous thromboses. There were two deaths, both from intractable heart failure.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that, when indicated, ICD leads can be safely extracted and systems successfully upgraded to take advantage of new technology.     

Cardiac Venous Left Ventricular Lead Removal and Reimplantation Following Device Infection: A Large Single‐Center Experience

LV Lead Extraction and Reimplantation. Background: Early series of biventricular device removal have contained mostly younger cardiac venous (CV) left ventricular leads and few have reported on rates of successful reimplantation. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients referred to the Cleveland Clinic between February 2, 2001 and July 27, 2011 for removal of a biventricular device with a CV pacing lead for an infectious indication. A total of 173 patients were included. The median age of the CV leads was 22.3 months (interquartile range: 5.2–46.3 months). The complete procedural success rate for all leads was 97.7%, with the remaining 2.3% clinical successes. A total of 76.9% of CV leads were removed using simple traction alone with the remaining leads requiring the use of a laser‐powered sheath. A total of 3.5% of leads required intervention (manual dissection or laser‐powered dissection) within the coronary sinus (CS). Major complications occurred in 1.2% of patients. Minor complications occurred in 7.5% of patients, the majority of which were hematomas requiring drainage (6.9%). CV lead reimplantation was attempted in 107 patients of which 88 (82.8%) were successful. Conclusion: CV lead removal in patients with an infected biventricular device is associated with an extremely high procedural success rate and a low incidence of major complications. The use of a laser‐powered sheath is necessary in roughly one‐quarter of cases with a very small percentage requiring intervention within the CS. Reimplantation of CV leads is achievable in roughly 83% of patients, a figure lower than nationally quoted estimates for de novo implantations. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 1213–1216, November 2012)