Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 24;19(23):15602. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192315602.

Abstract

Background: Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs.

Results: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480].

Conclusions: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Keywords: effectiveness; repeat extraction; safety; survival; transvenous lead extraction.

MeSH terms

  • Defibrillators, Implantable*
  • Device Removal / adverse effects
  • Equipment Failure
  • Humans
  • Lead
  • Pacemaker, Artificial*
  • Prognosis
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Lead

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.