既往胸骨切开经静脉铅提取:临床经验缓和的风险分析。

Michael Eskander, V. Pretorius, U. Birgersdotter-Green
{"title":"既往胸骨切开经静脉铅提取:临床经验缓和的风险分析。","authors":"Michael Eskander, V. Pretorius, U. Birgersdotter-Green","doi":"10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex yet effective procedure to remove indwelling leads belonging to cardiac devices with a potential for serious complications. Consequently, the 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction maintains that TLE be performed only at centers with an environment fully supportive of a lead extraction program, which includes a team-based approach, incorporating equipment and capable of managing all potential complications.1 An experienced center will evaluate the patient based on the current presentation and comorbid conditions, while incorporating the procedural and patient-related risks. Despite our best evaluation and preparation, however, a flawless risk stratification approach for those in consideration for TLE remains elusive. Patients with prior sternotomy (PS) is a group of interest due to theoretical mediastinal scarring which may protect against vascular tears and conversely increased adhesions and fibrosis which may delay precious life-saving surgical access after vascular complication from TLE. Historically, patients with PS have been shown to have increased operative morbidity and mortality. In a Swiss cohort undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, postoperative mortality rate was 9.6% (57/594) in PS compared with 2.8% (87/3184) in those with no prior sternotomy (NPS). Low cardiac output syndrome, intraaortic balloon pump support, prolonged ventilatory support (>24 hours), hemorrhage and gastrointestinal complications were prominent features in those with PS as compared with those undergoing primary coronary artery bypass grafting. While some recently published data may suggest PS as a predictor of clinical success in the setting of TLE, there continues to be a significant risk of urgent cardiac surgery—which carries high mortality, and appropriate planning with cardiothoracic backup is crucial.3,4 In this issue, Tsang et al5 present a single-center experience with prior sternotomy on outcomes in transvenous lead extractions. Of 1480 patients undergoing TLE, 455 had PS and were more likely to be male and have more comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease) than those with NPS. Patients with PS were more likely to have defibrillator leads (70.1% versus 62.3%; P=0.004) and more leads extracted per case (2.1±1.0 versus 1.9±0.9; P=0.006) though mean lead dwell time was similar between patient groups. Despite some baseline differences, procedural success rates were similar in both groups, 97.6% in the PS versus 98.4% in the NPS group (P=0.257). Major complications occurred in 9 (2.0%) PS patients and 23 (2.2%) patients with NPS (P=0.746). Notably, patients with EDITORIAL","PeriodicalId":10167,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prior Sternotomy in Transvenous Lead Extraction: Risk Analysis Tempered by Clinical Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Eskander, V. Pretorius, U. Birgersdotter-Green\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex yet effective procedure to remove indwelling leads belonging to cardiac devices with a potential for serious complications. Consequently, the 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction maintains that TLE be performed only at centers with an environment fully supportive of a lead extraction program, which includes a team-based approach, incorporating equipment and capable of managing all potential complications.1 An experienced center will evaluate the patient based on the current presentation and comorbid conditions, while incorporating the procedural and patient-related risks. Despite our best evaluation and preparation, however, a flawless risk stratification approach for those in consideration for TLE remains elusive. Patients with prior sternotomy (PS) is a group of interest due to theoretical mediastinal scarring which may protect against vascular tears and conversely increased adhesions and fibrosis which may delay precious life-saving surgical access after vascular complication from TLE. Historically, patients with PS have been shown to have increased operative morbidity and mortality. In a Swiss cohort undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, postoperative mortality rate was 9.6% (57/594) in PS compared with 2.8% (87/3184) in those with no prior sternotomy (NPS). Low cardiac output syndrome, intraaortic balloon pump support, prolonged ventilatory support (>24 hours), hemorrhage and gastrointestinal complications were prominent features in those with PS as compared with those undergoing primary coronary artery bypass grafting. While some recently published data may suggest PS as a predictor of clinical success in the setting of TLE, there continues to be a significant risk of urgent cardiac surgery—which carries high mortality, and appropriate planning with cardiothoracic backup is crucial.3,4 In this issue, Tsang et al5 present a single-center experience with prior sternotomy on outcomes in transvenous lead extractions. Of 1480 patients undergoing TLE, 455 had PS and were more likely to be male and have more comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease) than those with NPS. Patients with PS were more likely to have defibrillator leads (70.1% versus 62.3%; P=0.004) and more leads extracted per case (2.1±1.0 versus 1.9±0.9; P=0.006) though mean lead dwell time was similar between patient groups. Despite some baseline differences, procedural success rates were similar in both groups, 97.6% in the PS versus 98.4% in the NPS group (P=0.257). Major complications occurred in 9 (2.0%) PS patients and 23 (2.2%) patients with NPS (P=0.746). Notably, patients with EDITORIAL\",\"PeriodicalId\":10167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007762\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007762","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经静脉导联拔管(TLE)是一种复杂而有效的方法,用于去除属于心脏装置的留置导联,具有潜在的严重并发症。因此,2017年关于心血管植入式电子设备导联管理和拔管的HRS专家共识声明认为,TLE只能在完全支持导联拔管项目的中心进行,其中包括以团队为基础的方法,整合设备并能够管理所有潜在的并发症经验丰富的中心将根据患者目前的表现和合并症对患者进行评估,同时考虑手术风险和患者相关风险。然而,尽管我们进行了最好的评估和准备,对于那些考虑TLE的人来说,一个完美的风险分层方法仍然是难以捉摸的。先前胸骨切开术(PS)的患者是一个值得关注的群体,因为理论上的纵隔瘢痕可以防止血管撕裂,相反,粘连和纤维化的增加可能会延迟ttle血管并发症后宝贵的挽救生命的手术通路。从历史上看,PS患者的手术发病率和死亡率都有所增加。在瑞士接受冠状动脉旁路移植术的队列中,PS患者的术后死亡率为9.6%(57/594),而没有胸骨切开术(NPS)的患者的术后死亡率为2.8%(87/3184)。低心输出量综合征、主动脉内球囊泵支持、延长通气支持时间(>24小时)、出血和胃肠道并发症是PS患者与初级冠状动脉旁路移植术患者相比的突出特征。虽然最近发表的一些数据可能表明,PS是TLE临床成功的一个预测指标,但仍然存在紧急心脏手术的重大风险,这带来了高死亡率,适当的计划与心胸后援是至关重要的。在这篇文章中,Tsang等人提出了一项单中心的经验,先前的胸骨切开术对经静脉铅提取的结果有影响。在1480名接受TLE治疗的患者中,455名患者患有PS,与NPS患者相比,这些患者更有可能是男性,并且有更多的合并症(冠状动脉疾病、高血压、糖尿病和慢性肾脏疾病)。PS患者更有可能使用除颤器导联(70.1%对62.3%;P=0.004)和更多的引线提取(2.1±1.0 vs 1.9±0.9;P=0.006),但患者组间平均导联停留时间相似。尽管有一些基线差异,但两组的手术成功率相似,PS组为97.6%,NPS组为98.4% (P=0.257)。PS组9例(2.0%),NPS组23例(2.2%)出现严重并发症(P=0.746)。值得注意的是,社论患者
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Prior Sternotomy in Transvenous Lead Extraction: Risk Analysis Tempered by Clinical Experience.
Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex yet effective procedure to remove indwelling leads belonging to cardiac devices with a potential for serious complications. Consequently, the 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction maintains that TLE be performed only at centers with an environment fully supportive of a lead extraction program, which includes a team-based approach, incorporating equipment and capable of managing all potential complications.1 An experienced center will evaluate the patient based on the current presentation and comorbid conditions, while incorporating the procedural and patient-related risks. Despite our best evaluation and preparation, however, a flawless risk stratification approach for those in consideration for TLE remains elusive. Patients with prior sternotomy (PS) is a group of interest due to theoretical mediastinal scarring which may protect against vascular tears and conversely increased adhesions and fibrosis which may delay precious life-saving surgical access after vascular complication from TLE. Historically, patients with PS have been shown to have increased operative morbidity and mortality. In a Swiss cohort undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, postoperative mortality rate was 9.6% (57/594) in PS compared with 2.8% (87/3184) in those with no prior sternotomy (NPS). Low cardiac output syndrome, intraaortic balloon pump support, prolonged ventilatory support (>24 hours), hemorrhage and gastrointestinal complications were prominent features in those with PS as compared with those undergoing primary coronary artery bypass grafting. While some recently published data may suggest PS as a predictor of clinical success in the setting of TLE, there continues to be a significant risk of urgent cardiac surgery—which carries high mortality, and appropriate planning with cardiothoracic backup is crucial.3,4 In this issue, Tsang et al5 present a single-center experience with prior sternotomy on outcomes in transvenous lead extractions. Of 1480 patients undergoing TLE, 455 had PS and were more likely to be male and have more comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease) than those with NPS. Patients with PS were more likely to have defibrillator leads (70.1% versus 62.3%; P=0.004) and more leads extracted per case (2.1±1.0 versus 1.9±0.9; P=0.006) though mean lead dwell time was similar between patient groups. Despite some baseline differences, procedural success rates were similar in both groups, 97.6% in the PS versus 98.4% in the NPS group (P=0.257). Major complications occurred in 9 (2.0%) PS patients and 23 (2.2%) patients with NPS (P=0.746). Notably, patients with EDITORIAL
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Coronary Sinus Metabolite 12,13-diHOME Is a Novel Biomarker for Left Atrial Remodeling in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Impact of Contact Force on Pulsed Field Ablation Outcomes Using Focal Point Catheter Characteristics of Right-Sided Accessory Pathways Associated With Right Cardiac Veins Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial Trends Favoring an Anatomical Approach to Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Idiopathic Ventricular Arrhythmias Originating From the Left Ventricular Summit
×
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