Indications and outcomes of elective open chest lead extractions.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1111/jce.16412
Anshul R Gupta, John R Power, Yang Yang, Travis Pollema, Arman Arghami, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, Yong-Mei Cha
{"title":"Indications and outcomes of elective open chest lead extractions.","authors":"Anshul R Gupta, John R Power, Yang Yang, Travis Pollema, Arman Arghami, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, Yong-Mei Cha","doi":"10.1111/jce.16412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The records of 29 patients undergoing elective OLE were analyzed through retrospective chart review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16412","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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.

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

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

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
选择性开胸引线拔除术的适应症和结果。
背景:与心血管植入式电子设备相关的并发症可能会导致设备和导线的移除。对于并发症风险较高或需要同时进行心脏手术的病例,可选择开放式方法取出。本研究旨在调查两家大型三级医疗中心接受择期开放式导联取出术(OLE)患者的治疗效果:方法:通过回顾性病历分析了 29 名接受择期开放导联取出术的患者的病历:结果:29 名患者共抽取了 69 条导联(77% 完全抽取,23% 部分抽取)。最老导联的平均年龄为(13.3 ± 11.3)岁。感染性心内膜炎伴严重瓣膜功能不全需要瓣膜介入治疗(41%)--感染性病因,以及三尖瓣介入治疗以纠正 RV 导联相关的严重 TR(38%)--非感染性病因,是 OLE 最常见的原因。38%的患者还有其他首要或次要的开放摘除指征,如心血管造影术和心包切除术。主要并发症和手术失败率各为3%(1/29)。30天存活率为100%,1年存活率为92%。平均住院时间为15天,因感染原因接受OLE的患者平均住院时间更长:结论:在这批患者中,开放式导联取出术的临床成功率(97%)与经静脉导联取出术相似,对于需要进行瓣膜介入治疗或认为经静脉导联取出术并发症风险很高的患者来说,开放式导联取出术可能是一种可行的替代方法。
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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of palpitations in patients with frequent premature ventricular contractions. Body mass index as a determinant of scar formation post-AF ablation: Insights from DECAAF II. Efficacy and limitation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Frequency and Genotype-Dependence of intrinsic chronotropic insufficiency among patients with congenital long QT syndrome. Endocardial ablation of ganglionated plexus for the treatment of carotid sinus syndrome.
×
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