Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

To evaluate the efficacy of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) pocket infection, eliminating the need for CIED and leads extraction.

The NPWT cohort consisted of 42 patients with CIED infection who were treated with NPWT from 2013 to 2023. Among them, 3 patients had a systemic infection and 1 patient had incomplete data. We performed a case-control study in which the NPWT group was compared with the conservative treatment group (40 patients). Main outcomes included failure rate (CIED/lead extraction during the 1-year follow-up, 30-day mortality/chronic infection, or infection-related mortality/recurrence) and infection-free time, with cure defined as absence of failure criteria.

A total of 38 patients with pocket infections were treated with NPWT from 2013 to 2023. NPWT was curative in 78.9% (n = 30 of 38) of patients who remained free of infection [median follow-up 12.63 months, interquartile range (IQR): 12.30-34.10 months]. Compared with patients who were treated conservatively, the two groups demonstrated balanced baseline characteristics. Patients who were treated with NPWT had a significantly higher cure rate (78.9% vs. 55.0%, n = 22 of 40; p = 0.025) and a longer mean infection-free time at the 1-year follow-up (338.00 vs. 285.20 days, p = 0.034).

NPWT is an effective alternative for patients with CIED pocket infections who are unsuitable or unwilling to undergo CIED and leads extraction.

This study was approved by the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Clinicaltrials.gov number: ChiCTR2300073560) on July 07, 2023.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is on the rise, accompanied by an increase in its inevitable complications such as different types of CIED infections that require further therapy and potential device extraction. Ensuring efficacy and safety remains paramount in transvenous lead extraction (TLE), given the complex nature of the procedure. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of relatively low-cost mechanical TLE, including mid-term clinical follow-up, and to develop a predictive model for post-TLE survival. This study included all consecutive patients admitted for TLE at two tertiary medical centers between 2016 and 2021. Baseline characteristics, TLE procedure details complications occurring during and/or after the procedure and follow-up outcomes were collected.

During the 5-year period, 100 consecutive patients underwent TLE. The mean age of the subjects was 61 ± 3 years. The average time from lead implantation to TLE was 69.34 ± 9.36 months, with a total of 216 leads extracted. The most common indication for TLE was infection observed in 87% of subjects with pocket infection seen in the majority (84%). Complete clinical success was achieved in 98% of patients, with major complications occurred in 5% of cases and only one case of peri-procedural death. Proposed experimental model showed that near 50% of the patients will live less than 73.29 months.

TLE demonstrated a high level of safety with low mortality and morbidity rates. Using low cost widely available mechanical tools is useful for treating CIED-related infections.

Cardiac implantable electronic device infections (CIEDIs) present substantial challenges for infectious diseases specialists, encompassing diagnosis, management, and complex decision making involving patients, families, and multidisciplinary teams. This review, guided by a common clinical case presentation encountered in daily practice, navigates through the diagnostic process, management strategies in unique scenarios, long-term follow-up, and critical discussions required for CIEDIs.

The 2017 Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus paper on lead management and extraction did not express a preference for either extracting or abandoning pacing or defibrillator leads that are dysfunctional or superfluous after an upgrade (hereafter referred to as redundant leads). However, no randomized or even nonrandomized trials show a better patient outcome with extraction. Many experienced centers currently advise patients to have redundant leads removed to prevent more complicated procedures after years of abandonment. According to the literature, however, not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as >90% will have an uneventful follow-up. As immediate extraction of redundant leads has a small but significant risk, this will generate more adverse events at the population level than when extraction is limited to the patients with future lead complications, even considering a higher extraction risk at that time. Lead extraction is also limited to specialized centers and often necessitates expensive tools, in contrast to abandoning leads, which can be safely performed by any experienced device specialist without additional cost.

Utilization of transvenous lead extraction/removal (TLE) for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated infective endocarditis (IE) remains low. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of hospital TLE procedural volume on TLE utilization and outcomes for patients with CIED-associated IE.

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we evaluated 21 545 admissions for patients (mean age 70 years, 39% female) with CIEDs hospitalized with IE at TLE centres. Hospitals were categorized based on annual volume tertiles: (i) low-volume (1-17 TLEs/year), (ii) medium-volume (18-45 TLEs/year), and (iii) high-volume centres (>45 TLEs/year). Between 2016 and 2019, 57% of admissions in the study were to low-volume TLE centres. Transvenous lead extraction/removal was performed during 6.9, 19.3, and 26% of admissions for CIED-associated IE at low-, medium-, and high-volume TLE centres, respectively (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age and comorbidities, hospitalization for IE at high-volume centres was independently associated with TLE when compared with low-volume centres (adjusted odds ratio 4.26; 95% confidence interval 3.53-5.15). Transvenous lead extraction/removal-associated complication rates were similar at 2.5, 2.3, and 3.4% at low-, medium-, and high-volume centres, respectively (P = 0.493). Overall inpatient mortality during admissions to low-, medium-, and high-volume centres was also similar.

Admissions to high-volume TLE centres were associated with higher utilization of TLE for management of CIED-associated IE. Transvenous lead extraction/removal-associated complications and mortality among patients hospitalized with CIED-associated IE were similar when stratified by hospital TLE volume, but this needs to be considered in context of significant differences in patient comorbidity burden between centres.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being implanted at increasing rates. Patients with CIEDs require more lead management in contemporary clinical practice, given the increased survival of heart failure patients. There are multiple indications for extraction with the strongest class I indications being in patients with CIED infections. Extraction with complete hardware removal is underutilized and often delayed when it is utilized in patients with CIED infections, resulting in higher mortality. Patient and provider preferences are critical to decision-making when considering extraction. Lead extraction referral and management care pathways are needed in order to optimize care for our patients with CIEDs.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has evolved significantly since the introduction of cardiac pacing systems in the 1950s. The need for TLE has grown due to the increasing complexity of cardiac devices and patients, alongside rising infection rates and regulatory recalls. Despite its challenges, improved institutional support and advanced training programs have made TLE more accessible. Modern TLE indications are well-defined, evolving through scientific statements to include comprehensive lead management best practices and safety protocols. However, underutilization persists, particularly in infection management, highlighting the need for continued education and adherence to guidelines.

In this article, the authors review the approach to infections associated with surgically placed leads, leads placed in unusual locations such as azygous veins, extraction of active fixation coronary sinus leads, and the role of hybrid extractions in difficult cases. The authors also review strategies to mitigate the risk of paradoxic embolism among patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction.

Complications associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices may necessitate device and lead removal. An open approach to removal may be electively chosen in cases with high risk of complications or those requiring additional concomitant cardiac surgery. This study aimed to investigate outcomes of patients who underwent elective open lead extractions (OLE) at two large tertiary care centers.

The records of 29 patients undergoing elective OLE were analyzed through retrospective chart review.

69 total leads were extracted from 29 patients (77% completely, 23% partially). The average age of the oldest leads was 13.3 ± 11.3 years. Infective endocarditis with severe valvular insufficiency requiring valvular intervention (41%)-an infectious etiology, and tricuspid valve intervention to correct RV lead-related severe TR (38%)-a noninfectious etiology, were the most common reasons for OLE. 38% of the patients had additional co-primary or secondary indications for open extraction, such as CABG and pericardiectomies. The rate of major complications and procedural failure was 3% each (1/29). 30-day survival was 100%, and 1-year survival was 92%. The average length of hospital stay was 15 days and higher among those undergoing OLE for infectious indications.

Open lead extractions offered a similar clinical success rate (97%) to transvenous extractions in this cohort and may be a viable alternative for those necessitating valvular intervention or when the risk of complications from TLE is considered very high.

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection.

From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.

Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.

Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.

Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature.

Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures.

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.

(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.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of cardiac implantable electronic devices was once deemed highly risky by high-volume centers. However, advancements in technology have significantly reduced the risk, making TLE a safer procedure in electrophysiology.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs in a low-volume center with a single operator.

This study retrospectively accessed electronic medical records from the Tulane University School of Medicine system in New Orleans, Louisiana, and included patients who received mechanical TLE from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the indications for TLE, patient characteristics, lead characteristics, success rate, and complications.

We included 149 consecutive mechanical TLEs with an average implant duration of 105 months. A total of 53.7% (80) of TLEs were indicated for infectious reasons, and 37.6% (56) were high-voltage leads. Clinical success and complete procedural success rates were both 94.6% with no procedure-related mortality or major complications. The periprocedural mortality rate was 1.25% (1). Minor complications included a left chest pocket hematoma, a left groin hematoma, and urinary retention.

The efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs performed in a low-volume center are comparable with those in high-volume centers.

Higher rates of CIED implantations have been associated with an increased rate of lead failures and complications resulting in higher rates of transvenous lead extractions (TLE).

To assess the trends TLE admissions and evaluate the patient related predictors of safety outcomes.

National Readmission Database was queried to identify patients who underwent TLE from January 2016 to December 2019. We conducted a multivariate regression analysis to identify variables associated with in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing TLE. Additionally, we compared trends and outcomes of TLE among patients with prior sternotomy versus those without prior sternotomy and analyzed sex-based differences among patients undergoing TLE.

We identified 30,128 hospitalizations for TLE. The index admission in-hospital mortality rate was 3.21% with cardiac tamponade happening in 1.46% of the admissions. Age, infective endocarditis, CKD, congestive heart failure and anemia were associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates. There was a lower rate of in-hospital mortality in patients with history of prior sternotomy versus patients without (OR 0.72, CI: 0.59-0.87, p-value < 0.001). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality rate between males and females. Females had a shorter length and a higher cost of stay when compared to male gender.

TLE admissions continue to increase. Overall rates of mortality and complications are relatively low. Patients with prior sternotomy had better outcomes and less complications when compared to those without prior sternotomy. Female gender is associated with higher rates of cardiac tamponade, yet shorter length of stay with lower cost.

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a multifactorial disease that leads to increased morbidity and mortality.

The aim was to analyze patient-, disease- and treatment-related characteristics including microbiological and bacterial spectrum according to survival status and to identify risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality in patients with local and systemic CIED infection.

In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from patients with CIED-related local or systemic infection undergoing successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Survival status as well as incidence and cause of rehospitalization were recorded. Microbiology and antibiotics used as first-line therapy were compared according to mortality. Independent risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality were determined.

Data from 243 Patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 2.5%. Mortality rates at 30 days, 1- and 3 years were 4.1%, 18.1% and 30%, respectively. Seventy-four (30.5%) patients had systemic bacterial infection. Independent risk factors for 1-year mortality included age (OR 1.05 [1.01-1.10], p = 0.014), NT-proBNP at admission (OR 4.18 [1.81-9.65], p = 0.001), new onset or worsened tricuspid regurgitation after TLE (OR 6.04 [1.58-23.02], p = 0.009), and systemic infection (OR 2.76 [1.08-7.03], p = 0.034), whereas systemic infection was no longer an independent risk factor for 3-year mortality. Staphylococcus aureus was found in 18.1% of patients who survived and in 25% of those who died, p = 0.092. There was a high proportion of methicillin-resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylococci (16.5%) compared to Staphylococcus aureus (1.2%).

Staphylococci are the most common causative germs of CIED-infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci showing higher resistance rates to antibiotics. The independent risk factors for increased long-term mortality could contribute to individual risk stratification and well-founded treatment decisions in clinical routine. Especially the role of tricuspid regurgitation as a complication after TLE should be investigated in future studies.

Transvenous laser lead extraction poses a risk of major complications (0.19%-1.8%), notably injury to the superior vena cava (SVC) in 0.19% to 0.96% of cases. Various factors contribute to SVC injury, which can be categorized as patient-related (such as female gender, low body mass index, diabetes, renal problems, anemia, and reduced ejection fraction), device-related (including the number, dwell time, and type of leads), or procedural-related (such as reason for extraction, venous obstructions, and bilateral lead placements).

Purpose To examine the clinical effect of lead length and lead orientation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and lead fragments or abandoned leads undergoing 1.5-T MRI. Materials and Methods This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study included patients with CIEDs and abandoned leads or lead fragments undergoing 1.5-T MRI from March 2014 through July 2020. CIED settings before and after MRI were reviewed, with clinically significant variations defined as a composite of the change in capture threshold of at least 50%, in sensing of at least 40%, or in lead impedance of at least 30% between before MRI and after MRI interrogation. Adverse clinical events were assessed at MRI and up to 30 days after. Univariable and multivariable analysis was performed. Results Eighty patients with 126 abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments underwent 107 1.5-T MRI examinations. Sixty-seven patients (median age, 74 years; IQR, 66-78 years; 44 male patients, 23 female patients) had abandoned leads, and 13 (median age, 66 years; IQR, 52-74 years; nine male patients, four female patients) had lead fragments. There were no reported deaths, clinically significant arrhythmias, or adverse clinical events within 30 days of MRI. Three patients with abandoned leads had a significant change in the composite of capture threshold, sensing, or lead impedance. In a multivariable generalized estimating equation analysis, lead orientation, lead length, MRI type, and MRI duration were not associated with a significant change in the composite outcome. Conclusion Use of 1.5-T MRI in patients with abandoned CIED leads or lead fragments of varying length and orientation was not associated with adverse clinical events. Keywords: Cardiac Assist Devices, MRI, Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) secondary to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been well documented and is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed including lead-induced mechanical disruption of the tricuspid valvular or subvalvular apparatus and pacing-induced electrical dyssynchrony. Patient characteristics such as age, sex, baseline atrial fibrillation, and pre-existing TR have not been consistent predictors of CIED-induced TR. While two-dimensional echocardiography is helpful in assessing the severity of TR, three-dimensional echocardiography has significantly improved accuracy in identifying the etiology of TR and whether lead position contributes to TR. Three-dimensional echocardiography may therefore play a future role in optimizing lead positioning during implant to reduce the risk of CIED-induced TR. Optimal lead management strategies in addition to percutaneous interventions and surgery in alleviating TR are very important.

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) encompasses a range of clinical syndromes, including valvular, device lead, and bloodstream infections. However, accurately diagnosing CIED-IE remains challenging owing in part to diverse clinical presentations, lack of standardized definition, and variations in guideline recommendations. Furthermore, current diagnostic modalities, such as transesophageal echocardiography and [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography have limited sensitivity and specificity, further contributing to diagnostic uncertainty. This can potentially result in complications and unnecessary costs associated with inappropriate device extraction. Six hypothetical clinical cases that exemplify the diverse manifestations of CIED-IE are addressed herein. Through these cases, we highlight the importance of optimizing diagnostic accuracy and stewardship, understanding different pathogen-specific risks for bloodstream infections, guiding appropriate device extraction, and preventing CIED-IE, all while addressing key knowledge gaps. This review both informs clinicians and underscores crucial areas for future investigation, thereby shedding light on this complex and challenging syndrome.

The real-world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED.

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50-69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70-79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital outcome and 30-day readmission between these age groups.

A total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19-3.09, p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51-4.04, p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.72, p < .01). The risk of non-home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52-2.36; p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24-3.56; p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28-5.28; p < .01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30-day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups.

Elderly patients had worse in-hospital outcomes in early mortality and non-home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly a fundamental component of the diagnostic pathway across a range of conditions. Historically, the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) has been a contraindication for MRI, however, development of MR Conditional devices that can be scanned under strict protocols has facilitated the provision of MRI for patients. Additionally, there is growing safety data to support MR scanning in patients with CIEDs that do not have MR safety labelling or with MR Conditional CIEDs where certain conditions are not met, where the clinical justification is robust. This means that almost all patients with cardiac devices should now have the same access to MRI scanning in the National Health Service as the general population. Provision of MRI to patients with CIED, however, remains limited in the UK, with only half of units accepting scan requests even for patients with MR Conditional CIEDs. Service delivery requires specialist equipment and robust protocols to ensure patient safety and facilitate workflows, meanwhile demanding collaboration between healthcare professionals across many disciplines. This document provides consensus recommendations from across the relevant stakeholder professional bodies and patient groups to encourage provision of safe MRI for patients with CIEDs.

(1) Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can become far more complex when unanticipated difficulties arise. The aim was to develop a simple scoring system that allows for the prediction of the difficulty and complexity of this significant procedure. (2) Methods: Based on analysis of 3741 TLE procedures with and without complicating factors (extended fluoroscopy time, need for second-line instruments, and advanced techniques and instruments), a five-point Complex Indicator of Difficulty of (TLE) Procedure (CID-TLEP) scale was developed. Two or more points on the CID-TLEP scale indicate a higher level of procedure complexity. (3) Results: Patient age below 51 years at first CIED implantation, number of abandoned leads, number of previous procedures, passive fixation and multiple leads to be extracted, and a ratio of dwell time of oldest lead to patient age during TLE of >0.13 are significant predictors of higher levels of lead extraction complexity. The ROC analysis demonstrates that a point total (being the sum of the odds ratios of the above variables) of >9.697 indicates a 21.83% higher probability of complex TLE (sensitivity 74.08%, specificity 74.46%). Finally, a logistic function was calculated, and we constructed a simple equation for lead extraction complexity that can predict the probability of a difficult procedure. The risk of complex extraction (as a percentage) is calculated as [1/(1 + 55.34 · 0.754X)] · 100 (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The LECOM score can effectively predict the risk of a difficult transvenous lead extraction procedure, and predicting the probability of a more complex procedure may help clinicians in planning lead removal and improving patient management.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads is considered challenging. The structure of each ICD leads is variable between manufacturer and model families. The net impact of lead family on the safety and effectiveness of TLE is poorly characterized. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ICD TLE and the impact of manufacturer ICD model family on the outcomes.

The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD who underwent TLE between 2013 and 2022 and are enrolled in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry. A total of 885 ICD leads (median implant duration 8 years) in 810 patients were included. Complete ICD TLE success was achieved in 97.2% of the leads (n = 860) and in 98.0% of the patients (n = 794). Major complications occurred in 22 patients (2.7%). Complete procedural success rate varied by manufacturer and lead family; Medtronic 98.9%, Abbott 95.9%, Boston Scientific 95.0%, Biotronik 91.2%, P = 0.03, and Linox family leads had the lowest, 89.7% P = 0.02. Multivariable predictors of incomplete ICD lead removal included ICD lead age > 10 years and Linox family lead. Multivariable predictors of major complications included ICD lead age > 15 years and longer lead extraction time, and predictors of all-cause mortality within 30 days included lead extraction for infection, end-stage renal disease, and higher New York Heart Association functional class.

Complete and safe ICD lead removal rate by TLE is extremely high but varied by manufacturer and lead family. Linox family lead and >10 years lead age were independent predictors of incomplete lead removal.

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE), a GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) cannot always be advanced over the lead, and crossover to the Evolution system (i.e., an Evolution RL sheath or Evolution Shortie RL sheath [Cook Medical]) is required. We aimed to determine the associated factors and outcomes of such device crossover.

This observational study included 112 patients who underwent TLE. The patients were divided into crossover and non-crossover groups. Outcomes and associated factors of crossover were evaluated.

Overall, 57 (50.9%) patients required crossover to the Evolution system (crossover group), whereas 55 (49.1%) patients did not require crossover (non-crossover group). Clinical success rate was similar between the two groups (98.3% vs. 100%; p = 1.00). No major intraprocedural complications related to powered sheaths occurred. Multivariate logistic regression analysis results showed that dwell time of the oldest extracted lead (per year) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.36; p = .026), number of leads extracted per procedure (OR: 7.23, 95% CI: 1.74-29.99; p = .007), and use of a femoral approach (OR: 21.09, 95% CI: 2.33-190.67; p = .007) were associated factors of crossover. The cutoff for crossover was 7.7 years from the implant (sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 64.9%, area under the curve 0.80).

Both groups showed a high rate of clinical success. Switching to the Evolution system may facilitate a safe and effective TLE when a laser sheath does not advance despite laser activation.

Lead extraction due to infection or lead dysfunction has become more important in recent years. Patients with high risk of severe and life-threatening complications should only undergo surgery in experienced centers where appropriate personnel and equipment are available. In this review, different techniques and methods to safely and successfully perform transvenous lead extraction are summarized.

Complete hardware removal is a class I recommendation for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, but practice patterns and outcomes remain unknown.

To quantify the number of Medicare patients with CIED infections who underwent implantation from 2006 to 2019 and lead extraction from 2007 to 2019 to analyze the outcomes in these patients in a nationwide clinical practice cohort.

This cohort study included fee-for-service Medicare Part D beneficiaries from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, who had a de novo CIED implantation and a CIED infection more than 1 year after implantation. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2019.

A CIED infection, defined as (1) endocarditis or infection of a device implant and (2) documented antibiotic therapy.

The primary outcomes of interest were device infection, device extraction, and all-cause mortality. Time-varying multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the association between extraction and survival.

Among 1 065 549 patients (median age, 78.0 years [IQR, 72.0-84.0 years]; 50.9% male), mean (SD) follow-up was 4.6 (2.9) years after implantation. There were 11 304 patients (1.1%) with CIED infection (median age, 75.0 years [IQR, 67.0-82.0 years]); 60.1% were male, and 7724 (68.3%) had diabetes. A total of 2102 patients with CIED infection (18.6%) underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Infection occurred a mean (SD) of 3.7 (2.4) years after implantation, and 1-year survival was 68.3%. There was evidence of highly selective treatment, as most patients did not have extraction within 30 days of diagnosed infection (9202 [81.4%]), while 1511 (13.4%) had extraction within 6 days of diagnosis and 591 (5.2%) had extraction between days 7 and 30. Any extraction was associated with lower mortality compared with no extraction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90; P < .001). Extraction within 6 days was associated with even lower risk of mortality (AHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.78; P < .001).

In this study, a minority of patients with CIED infection underwent extraction. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of death compared with no extraction. The findings suggest a need to improve adherence to guideline-directed care among patients with CIED infection.

Same-day discharge (SDD) after cardiovascular procedures is rapidly gaining ground.

We sought to evaluate the safety of SDD after transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent elective TLE between January 2020 and October 2021 at our institution. The primary outcome was SDD, and major procedural complications and readmissions within 30 days of the procedure were secondary outcomes.

In this analysis of 111 patients who underwent elective TLE, 80 patients (72%) were discharged on the same day (SDD group) while 31 patients (28%) stayed overnight (overnight group). Lead malfunction was the most common indication for TLE in both groups. Patients in the overnight group were more likely to have a lead dwell time of ≤10 years than those in the SDD group (38.7% vs 20% of all leads in each group; P = .042), have laser sheaths used for extraction and a higher number of leads extracted. No major complications were reported in both groups. In a multivariate analysis, lower body mass index and the use of laser sheath during TLE were predictors of overnight stay. Patients who underwent a procedure using advanced extraction techniques were 3.5 times more likely to stay overnight (95% confidence interval 1.27-9.78; P = .016).

In appropriately selected patients undergoing elective lead extraction, SDD is feasible and safe. Higher body mass index, fewer extracted leads, shorter lead dwell times (<10 years), and less frequent use of laser-powered extraction sheaths were associated with an increased likelihood of SDD.

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Transvenous laser lead extraction (TLE) for cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) is a challenging procedure especially if performed in octogenarians. In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of transvenous laser lead extraction in elderly patients.

This is a retrospective study of octogenarian patients who underwent laser-assisted lead extraction (LLE) (GlideLight laser sheath, Philips, San Diego, USA). 270 Consecutive patients were included. Patients were divided into two groups. Octogenarian group and non-octogenarian group. The Data was gathered from patients treated between September 2013 and January 2020 and is retrospectively analyzed.

Of 270 consecutive patients, 38 (14.0%) were 80 years old or more. The total number of the extracted leads was 556 among which 84(15.0%) from the Octogenarian group. From these leads were 155 single coil leads, 82 dual coil leads, 129 right ventricular pacing leads, 155 right atrial leads, and 35 left ventricular leads. In the Octogenarian group the number of removed leads was as follows: 13 single coil leads, 10 dual coil leads, 28 right ventricular pacing leads, 28 right atrial leads and 5 left ventricular leads. No mortality was recorded in the Octogenarian group. One patient in the YG suffered from a superior vena cava tear and one patient suffered from pulmonary embolism.

In octogenarian laser assisted lead extraction patients is a safe and effective procedure. No increase in morbidity, mortality or perioperative complication could be recorded in this group. Age should not be a limiting factor to perform this procedure.

The prevalence of young patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is steadily increasing, accompanied by a rise in the occurrence of complications related to CIEDs. Consequently, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become a crucial treatment approach for such individuals.

The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics and procedural outcomes of young patients who undergo TLE, with a specific focus on identifying independent risk factors associated with adverse events.

All patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) were categorized into two groups based on their age at the time of enrollment: 45 years or younger, and over 45 years. A subgroup analysis was conducted specifically for the younger population. In this analysis, predictor variables for all-cause mortality, procedural complications, and procedural failure were evaluated using multivariable analyses.

We identified 160 patients aged 45 years or younger with a mean age of 35.3 ± 7.6 years and 42.5% (n = 68) female patients. Leading extraction indication was lead dysfunction in 51.3% of cases, followed by local infections in 20.6% and systemic infections in 16.9%. The most common device to be extracted were implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) with 52.5%. Mean number of leads per patient was 2.2 ± 1.0. Median age of the oldest indwelling lead was 91.5 [54.75-137.5] months. Overall complication rate was 3.8% with 1.9% minor and 1.9% major complications. Complete procedural success was achieved in 90.6% of cases. Clinical procedural success rate was 98.1%. Procedure-related mortality was 0.0%. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was 2.5%, with septic shock identified as the primary cause of mortality. Multivariable analysis revealed CKD (OR: 19.0; 95% CI: 1.84-194.9; p = 0.018) and systemic infection (OR: 12.7; 95% CI: 1.14-142.8; p = 0.039) as independent predictor for all-cause mortality. Lead age ≥ 10 years (OR: 14.58, 95% CI: 1.36-156.2; p = 0.027) was identified as sole independent risk factor for procedural complication.

TLE in young patients is safe and effective with a procedure-related mortality rate of 0.0%. CKD and systemic infection are predictors for all-cause mortality, whereas lead age ≥ 10 years was identified as independent risk factor for procedural complications in young patients undergoing TLE.

With the growing use of implantable cardiac devices, the need for transvenous lead extraction has increased, which translates to increased procedural volumes. Sex differences in lead extraction outcomes are not well studied.

The present study aims at evaluating the impact of sex on outcomes of lead extraction.

We identified 71,754 patients who presented between 2016 and 2019 and underwent transvenous lead extraction. Their clinical data were retrospectively accrued from the National Readmission Database (NRD) using the corresponding diagnosis codes. We compared clinical outcomes between male and female patients. Odds ratios (ORs) for the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated, and multivariable regression analysis was utilized to adjust for confounding variables.

Compared to male patients, female patients had higher in-hospital complications including pneumothorax (OR 1.26, 95% CI (1.07-1.4), P < 0.01), hemopericardium (OR 1.39, 95% CI (1.02-1.88), P = 0.036), injury to superior vena cava and innominate vein requiring repair (OR 1.88, 95% CI (1.14-3.1), P = 0.014; OR 3.4, 95% CI (1.8-6.5), P < 0.01), need for blood transfusion (OR 1.28, 95% CI (1.18-1.38), P < 0.01), and pericardiocentesis (OR 1.6, 95% CI (1.3-2), P < 0.01). Thirty-day readmission was also significantly higher in female patients (OR 1.09, 95% CI (1.02-1.17), P < 0.01). There was no significant difference regarding in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI (0.87-1.14), P = 0.95).

In female patients, lead extraction is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission rate.

In an aging population with cardiac implantable electronic devices, an increasing number of octo- and even nonagenarians present for lead extraction procedures. Those patients are considered at increased risk for surgical procedures including lead extraction. Here, we investigated safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction in a large patient cohort of octo- and nonagenarians.

A subgroup analysis of all patients aged ≥80 years (n = 499) in the German Laser Lead Extraction Registry (GALLERY) was performed. Outcomes were compared to the nonoctogenarians from the registry. Primary extraction method was Laser lead extraction, with additional use of mechanical rotational sheaths or femoral snares, if necessary. An analysis of patient- and device characteristics, as well as an assessment of predictors for adverse events via multivariate analyses was conducted. Mean patients age was 84.3 ± 3.7 years in the octogenarians group and 64.1 ± 12.4 years in the nonoctogenarians group. The median lead dwell time was 118.0 months (78; 167) and 92.0 months [60; 133], p < .001 in the octogenarians and nonoctogenarians group, respectively. Clinical procedural success rate was achieved in 97.6% of the cases in octogenarians and 97.9% in nonoctogenarians (p = .70). Overall complication rate was 4.4% in octogenarians and 4.3% in nonoctogenarians (0.91). In octogenarians procedure-related mortality was 0.8% and all-cause in-hospital mortality was 5.4%, while in nonoctogenarians, procedure related and all-cause in-hospital mortality were 0.5% and 3.1%, respectively. A body mass index (BMI) <20 kg/m2 , was the only statistically significant predictor for procedure-related complications in octogenarians, while systemic infection, BMI ≤20 kg/m2 , procedural complications and chronic kidney disease were predictors for in-hospital mortality.

Laser lead extraction in octo- and nonagenarians is safe and effective. BMI ≤20 kg/m2 was the only statistically significant predictor for procedural complications. According to our data, advanced age should not be considered as contraindication for laser lead extraction.

Device patients may require upgrade interventions from simpler to more complex cardiac implantable electronic devices. Prior to upgrading interventions, clinicians need to balance the risks and benefits of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), additional lead implantation or lead abandonment. However, evidence on procedural outcomes of TLE at the time of device upgrade is scarce.

This is a post hoc analysis of the investigator-initiated multicenter Swiss TLE registry. The objectives were to assess patient and procedural factors influencing TLE outcomes at the time of device upgrades.

941 patients were included, whereof 83 (8.8%) had TLE due to a device upgrade. Rotational mechanical sheaths were more often used in upgraded patients (59% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.015) and total median procedure time was longer in these patients (160 min vs. 105 min, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates of upgraded patients compared to those who received TLE due to other reasons were not different (97.6% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.569). Moreover, multivariable analysis showed that upgrade procedures were not associated with a greater risk for complications (HR 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.57, p = 0.224; intraprocedural complication rate of upgraded patients 7.2% vs. 5.5%). Intraprocedural complications of upgraded patients were mostly associated with the implantation and not the extraction procedure (67% vs. 33% of complications).

TLE during device upgrade is effective and does not attribute a disproportionate risk to the upgrade procedure.

Device complications, such as infection or lead dysfunction necessitating transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are continuously rising amongst patients with transvenous implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

Aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk-factors of patients with indwelling 1- and 2-chamber ICD undergoing TLE.

We conducted a subgroup analysis of all ICD patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database. Predictors for procedural failure and all-cause mortality were assessed.

We identified 842 patients with an ICD undergoing TLE with the mean age of 62.8 ± 13.8 years. A total number of 1610 leads were treated with lead dysfunction (48.5%) as leading indication for extraction, followed by device-related infection (45.4%). Lead-per-patient ratio was 1.91 ± 0.88 and 60.0% of patients had dual-coil defibrillator leads. Additional extraction tools, such as mechanical rotating dilator sheaths and snares were utilized in 6.5% of cases. Overall procedural complications occurred in 4.3% with 2.0% major complications and a procedure-related mortality of 0.8%. Clinical success rate was 97.9%. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 3.4%, with sepsis being the leading cause for mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed lead-age ≥10 years (OR:5.82, 95%CI:2.1-16.6; p = .001) as independent predictor for procedural failure. Systemic infection (OR:9.57, 95%CI:2.2-42.4; p < .001) and procedural complications (OR:8.0, 95%CI:2.8-23.3; p < .001) were identified as risk factors for all-cause mortality.

TLE is safe and efficacious in patients with 1- and 2-chamber ICD. Although lead dysfunction is the leading indication for extraction, systemic device-related infection is the main driver of all-cause mortality for ICD patients undergoing TLE.