Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 27;34(4):458-463.
doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0275.

Lead Removal Without Extraction Tools: A Single-Center Experience

Affiliations

Lead Removal Without Extraction Tools: A Single-Center Experience

Neiberg de Alcantara Lima et al. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. .

Abstract

Introduction: Indications for cardiac devices have been increasing as well as the need for lead extractions as a result of infections, failed leads and device recalls. Powered laser sheaths, with a global trend towards the in-creasingly technological tools, meant to improve the procedure's outcome but have economic implications.

Objective: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the experience of a Bra-zilian center that uses simple manual traction in most lead removals per-formed annually, questioning the real need for expensive and technically challenging new devices.

Methods: This retrospective observational study included 35 patients who had a transvenous lead extraction in the period of a year between January 1998 and October 2014 at Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes, in Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. Data were collected through a records review. They were evaluated based on age, type of device, dwelling time, indication for removal, technique used and immediate outcomes.

Results: The median dwelling time of the devices was 46.22 months. Infec-tion, lead fracture and device malfunction were the most common indica-tions. Simple traction was the method of choice, used in 88.9% of the pro-cedures. Manual traction presented high success rates, resulting in com-plete removal without complications in 90% of the cases.

Conclusion: This article suggests that lead extraction by simple manual traction can still be performed effectively in countries with economic diffi-culties as a first attempt, leaving auxiliary tools for a second attempt in case of failure or contraindications to the simple manual traction technique.

Keywords: Lasers; Pacemaker, Artificial; Retrospective Studies; Traction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Atrial lead manual traction extraction.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Outcomes of the procedures.

References

    1. Bongiorni MG, Segreti L, Di Cori A, Zucchelli G, Paperini L, Viani S, et al. Overcoming the current issues surrounding device leads: reducing the compli-cations during extraction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14(6):469–480. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2017.1332990. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, Berul CI, Birgersdotter-Green UM, Carrillo R, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(12):e503–e551. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.09.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birgersdotter-Green UM, Pretorius VG. Lead extractions: indications, proce-dural aspects, and outcomes. Cardiol Clin. 2014;32(2):201–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ccl.2013.12.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buiten MS, van der Heijden AC, Schalij MJ, van Erven L. How adequate are the current methods of lead extraction? A review of the efficiency and safety of transvenous lead extraction methods. EP Europace. 2015;17(5):689–700. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu378. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wazni O, Wilkoff BL. Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(4):221–229. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2015.207. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources