These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: High recurrence of device-related adverse events following transvenous lead extraction procedure in patients with cardiac resynchronization devices.
    Author: Regoli F, Bongiorni MG, Rordorf R, Santamaria M, Klersy C, Segreti L, De Regibus V, Moccetti T, Conte G, Caputo ML, Auricchio A.
    Journal: Eur J Heart Fail; 2016 Oct; 18(10):1270-1277. PubMed ID: 27170594.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the clinical outcome and recurring system-related adverse events (SAE) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients after transvenous lead extraction (TLE). METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2009 to June 2014, 256 consecutive CRT patients (mean age 68.3 ± 11.6 years, 216 male, 88% in New York Heart Association class II-IV, ejection fraction 35.1 ± 10.8%) were treated at four European institutions with TLE. Indications for TLE included systemic (18%) or local (45%) infection, system malfunction (34%), or other (3%). Demographic, clinical, TLE procedural, and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Adverse events (AE) were considered as death from any cause, cardiovascular hospitalization, and SAE (SAE included pocket and/or systemic infection, lead malfunction, or pocket haematoma requiring revision). Complete removal was achieved for 609 out of 614 leads (99.2%) by using either manual traction (28%), mechanical (52%) or laser (20%) sheaths. Over a median follow-up of 21 (interquartile range 12-29) months, cumulative incidences of any AE and SAE were 53.9% and 21.1%, respectively. Recurring system malfunction occurred in 23 patients (9.0%), infection in 16 patients (6.2%), and pocket haematoma requiring revision in 15 patients (5.9%). Oral anticoagulation therapy was an independent predictor of both any AE [hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-3.22, P = 0.001] and SAE (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.21-4.68, P = 0.012) after TLE. CONCLUSIONS: Even though TLE is safe and effective to treat CRT patients, a high burden of recurring SAE after TLE was observed at mid-term follow-up. Careful evaluation of both patient characteristics as well as implantation strategy is suggested when indicating TLE in a CRT patient, particularly in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]