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
Review
. 2023 Sep;31(9):327-329.
doi: 10.1007/s12471-023-01770-7. Epub 2023 Apr 3.

Extraction of non-infected redundant pacing and defibrillator leads does not result in better patient outcomes

Frank A Bracke  1 , Leonard M Rademakers  2 , Dennis van Veghel  2
Affiliations
Review

Extraction of non-infected redundant pacing and defibrillator leads does not result in better patient outcomes

Frank A Bracke et al. Neth Heart J. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

The introduction of dedicated tools for pacing and defibrillator lead extraction has resulted in relatively high success and low complication rates. The confidence this elicits has broadened the indications from device infections to non-functional or redundant leads and the latter make up an increasing share of extraction procedures. Proponents of extracting these leads point to the higher complication burden of lead extraction in patients with longstanding abandoned leads when compared one-to-one with extraction when these leads become redundant. However, this does not translate into better patient outcomes on a population level: complications are rare with properly abandoned leads and thus most patients will never be subjected to an extraction procedure and the ensuing complications. Therefore, not extracting redundant leads minimises the risk for the patients and avoids many expensive procedures.

Keywords: Abandoned; Complications; Defibrillator; Indication; Lead extraction; Pacemaker.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

F.A. Bracke, L.M. Rademakers and D. van Veghel declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:e503–51. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.09.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hussein AA, Tarakji KG, Martin DO, et al. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: added complexity and suboptimal outcomes with previously abandoned leads. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.06.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Merchant FM, Tejada T, Patel A, et al. Procedural outcomes and long-term survival associated with lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15:855–859. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.01.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barakat AF, Wazni OM, Tarakji K, et al. Transvenous lead extraction at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade: complexity, safety, and outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:1807–1811. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.08.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brunner MP, Cronin EM, Jacob J, et al. Transvenous extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads under advisory: a comparison of riata, sprint fidelis, and non-recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10:1444–1450. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.06.021. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources