Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction in the Device Laboratory and Operating Room Guided by a Novel Risk Stratification Scheme.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to evaluate a novel risk stratification scheme to categorize patients on the basis of risk to either an operating room or device laboratory with rescue strategy. BACKGROUND Lead extraction can be complicated by lethal issues such as vascular and cardiac rupture. Currently, the optimal site for lead extraction has not been well established. METHODS A risk stratification scheme was developed from previously available risk factors for major complications. Patients were prospectively risk stratified between October 2013 and January 2016. High-risk procedures were performed in the operating room with ready surgical services; intermediate-risk procedures were performed in the device laboratory. RESULTS In total, 349 leads were removed from 187 patients (age 61.0 ± 17.2 years; 66.3% men) over 27 months. Seventy-two patients (38.5%) were categorized as high risk. Median implant duration of the oldest lead per patient was 11.2 years (interquartile range: 7.9 to 14.9 years) in the operating room group versus 2.6 years (interquartile range: 1.6 to 4.9 years) in the device laboratory group (p < 0.001). Clinical success in the operating room (95.8%) and device laboratory (99.1%) groups was similar (p = 0.16). A higher incidence of major complications occurred in the high-risk group (operating room group: 6.9%; device laboratory: 0.0%; p = 0.007). In-hospital mortality (operating room group: 8.3%; device laboratory: 2.6%; p = 0.09) and long-term (2-year) survival (operating room: 70.8%; device laboratory: 84.4%; p = 0.07) rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS Use of a novel risk stratification scheme in guiding the selection of operating room versus device laboratory for lead extraction is feasible, safe, and efficacious. Intermediate-risk procedures can be performed safely in the device laboratory with rescue strategy, without excess surgical resource utilization.

[1]  S. Saba,et al.  Rising rates of cardiac rhythm management device infections in the United States: 1996 through 2003. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  Charles A Henrikson,et al.  A Survey of the Practice of Lead Extraction in the United States , 2010, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[3]  P. Noseworthy,et al.  Trends in Use and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Transvenous Lead Removal in the United States , 2015, Circulation.

[4]  Michael P. Brunner,et al.  Clinical predictors of adverse patient outcomes in an experience of more than 5000 chronic endovascular pacemaker and defibrillator lead extractions. , 2014, Heart rhythm.

[5]  C. Ervin,et al.  Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Michael P. Brunner,et al.  Outcomes of patients requiring emergent surgical or endovascular intervention for catastrophic complications during transvenous lead extraction. , 2014, Heart rhythm.

[7]  D. Hodge,et al.  Outcomes and Complications of Lead Removal: Can We Establish a Risk Stratification Schema for a Collaborative and Effective Approach? , 2015, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[8]  Samuel O Jones,et al.  Long-Term Mortality After Transvenous Lead Extraction , 2012, Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology.

[9]  M. Ginks,et al.  Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction: Predictors of Mortality during Follow‐Up , 2010, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[10]  L. Epstein,et al.  Bridge to surgery: Best practice protocol derived from early clinical experience with the Bridge Occlusion Balloon. Federated Agreement from the Eleventh Annual Lead Management Symposium. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[11]  Macy C Smith,et al.  Extraction of Transvenous Pacing and ICD Leads , 2008, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[12]  Robert G. Hauser,et al.  Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter–defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction , 2009, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  C. Blauth,et al.  Trends, indications and outcomes of cardiac implantable device system extraction: a single UK centre experience over the last decade , 2012, International journal of clinical practice.

[14]  J. Wranicz,et al.  Risk score to assess mortality risk in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction , 2017, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[15]  D L Hayes,et al.  Pacemaker lead extraction with the laser sheath: results of the pacing lead extraction with the excimer sheath (PLEXES) trial. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  Maria Grazia Bongiorni,et al.  Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA). , 2009, Heart rhythm.

[17]  M. Shoda,et al.  2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[18]  T. D. Sellers,et al.  Clinical Study of the Laser Sheath for Lead Extraction: The Total Experience in the United States , 2002, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[19]  J. Deharo,et al.  Extraction of transvenous leads in the operating room versus electrophysiology laboratory: a comparative study. , 2011, Heart rhythm.

[20]  C. Rinaldi,et al.  The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of Transvenous Lead Extraction Outcomes , 2017, European heart journal.