Comprehensive analysis of substernal lead removal: experience from EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies.

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Europace Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1093/europace/euae225
Venkata Sagi, Francis Murgatroyd, Lucas V A Boersma, Jaimie Manlucu, Bradley P Knight, Christophe Leclercq, Anish Amin, Ulrika Maria Birgersdotter-Green, Joseph Yat Sun Chan, Henri Roukoz, Mauro Biffi, Haris Haqqani, Russell Denman, Christopher Wiggenhorn, Thomas R Holmes, Thomas Lulic, Paul Friedman, Ian Crozier
{"title":"Comprehensive analysis of substernal lead removal: experience from EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies.","authors":"Venkata Sagi, Francis Murgatroyd, Lucas V A Boersma, Jaimie Manlucu, Bradley P Knight, Christophe Leclercq, Anish Amin, Ulrika Maria Birgersdotter-Green, Joseph Yat Sun Chan, Henri Roukoz, Mauro Biffi, Haris Haqqani, Russell Denman, Christopher Wiggenhorn, Thomas R Holmes, Thomas Lulic, Paul Friedman, Ian Crozier","doi":"10.1093/europace/euae225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, but little is known about EV ICD lead removal in humans. This analysis aimed to characterize the EV ICD lead removal experience thus far.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>This was a retrospective analysis of lead removals from the EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies. Patients with a successful EV ICD implant who underwent lead removal were included. The main objective was lead removal success. Ancillary objectives included characterizing technique used, procedure complications, and reimplantation status. An EV ICD system was successfully implanted in 347 patients across the 3 studies (25.9% female; 53.4 ± 13.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 39.7 ± 15.9). Of these patients, 29 (8.4%) underwent lead removal with a mean lead dwell time of 12.6 ± 14.3 months (0.2-58.4). The main reason for lead removal was lead dislodgement (n = 9, 31.0%). Lead removal was successful in 27/29 (93.1%) cases [100% (19/19) success rate <1 year and 80% (8/10) success rate >1 year post-implant]. Simple traction was used in 22/26 (84.6%) and extraction tools in 4/26 (15.4%) successful cases where technique was known. No complications were reported for any of the removal procedures. All 11 EV ICD reimplant attempts were successful.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Complete removal of the EV ICD lead was successful in 93.1% of cases, and simple traction was sufficient in most instances. Based on these results, lead removal from the substernal space was safe and achievable up to 3 years post-implant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11981,"journal":{"name":"Europace","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420630/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europace","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae225","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, but little is known about EV ICD lead removal in humans. This analysis aimed to characterize the EV ICD lead removal experience thus far.

Methods and results: This was a retrospective analysis of lead removals from the EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies. Patients with a successful EV ICD implant who underwent lead removal were included. The main objective was lead removal success. Ancillary objectives included characterizing technique used, procedure complications, and reimplantation status. An EV ICD system was successfully implanted in 347 patients across the 3 studies (25.9% female; 53.4 ± 13.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 39.7 ± 15.9). Of these patients, 29 (8.4%) underwent lead removal with a mean lead dwell time of 12.6 ± 14.3 months (0.2-58.4). The main reason for lead removal was lead dislodgement (n = 9, 31.0%). Lead removal was successful in 27/29 (93.1%) cases [100% (19/19) success rate <1 year and 80% (8/10) success rate >1 year post-implant]. Simple traction was used in 22/26 (84.6%) and extraction tools in 4/26 (15.4%) successful cases where technique was known. No complications were reported for any of the removal procedures. All 11 EV ICD reimplant attempts were successful.

Conclusion: Complete removal of the EV ICD lead was successful in 93.1% of cases, and simple traction was sufficient in most instances. Based on these results, lead removal from the substernal space was safe and achievable up to 3 years post-implant.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心下导联线移除的综合分析:电动 ICD 试点、关键和持续使用研究的经验。
背景和目的:血管外植入式心律转复除颤器(EV ICD)已被证明对有心脏性猝死风险的患者安全有效,但人们对人体中 EV ICD 导联的移除知之甚少。本分析旨在描述迄今为止 EV ICD 导联移除经验的特点:这是一项对 EV ICD 试验研究、关键研究和持续访问研究中的导联移除情况进行的回顾性分析。研究纳入了成功植入 EV ICD 并进行了导联移除的患者。主要目标是移除导联的成功率。辅助目标包括描述所用技术、手术并发症和再植入情况:3项研究共为347名患者成功植入了EV ICD系统(25.9%为女性;53.4±13.3岁;LVEF:39.7±15.9)。在这些患者中,29 人(8.4%)进行了导联移除,平均导联停留时间为 12.6±14.3 个月(0.2-58.4)。移除导联的主要原因是导联脱落(9 人,31.0%)。27/29(93.1%)例成功拔除了引线[植入后1年成功率为100%(19/19)]。在 22/26 例(84.6%)中使用了简单牵引,在 4/26 例(15.4%)成功病例中使用了拔出工具,这些病例的技术都是已知的。所有移除手术均未报告并发症。所有 11 例 EV ICD 再植入尝试均获得成功:结论:93.1% 的病例成功地完全取出了 EV ICD 导联,在大多数情况下,简单的牵引就足够了。基于这些结果,从胸骨下间隙移除导联是安全的,并且可以在植入后 3 年内完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Europace
Europace 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
8.20%
发文量
851
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: EP - Europace - European Journal of Pacing, Arrhythmias and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to provide an avenue of communication of top quality European and international original scientific work and reviews in the fields of Arrhythmias, Pacing and Cellular Electrophysiology. The Journal offers the reader a collection of contemporary original peer-reviewed papers, invited papers and editorial comments together with book reviews and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Multielectrode Catheter-Based Pulsed Electric Field Versus Cryoballoon For Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Familial risk of sinus node dysfunction indicating pacemaker implantation: A nation-wide cohort study. Increased Pacemaker Implantation and Mortality Rates in Relatives of Patients with Early-Onset Sinus Node Dysfunction: Can Genetics Explain All? aTrial arrhythmias in inhEriTed aRrhythmIa Syndromes: results from the TETRIS study. Temperature guided high and very high-power short duration ablation for atrial fibrillation treatment - The peQasus multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1