Home Latest News Cardiac lead extractions safer in high volume centres

Cardiac lead extractions safer in high volume centres

Cardiac lead extractions safer in high volume centres

Cardiac lead extraction is safer in high volume centres, according to the largest study of contemporary practice in Europe, published in European Heart Journal. Extraction in a low volume centre was associated with a doubled risk of death while in hospital.

Maria Grazia Bongiorni

The European Lead Extraction Controlled Registry (ELECTRa) of transvenous lead extraction outcomes was conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) under the EURObservational Research Programme (EORP).

“Indications for transvenous lead extraction are expanding as lead extraction technology improves and extractors become increasingly skilled,” says lead author Maria Grazia Bongiorni, director of the Cardiology, Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Department at University Hospital in Pisa, Italy. “In Europe, most centres have only recently started performing transvenous lead extraction and data are lacking on indications, techniques, success rates, safety, and follow-up.”

The ELECTRa registry included 73 centres from 19 countries who enrolled 3,555 consecutive patients, of whom 3,510 underwent transvenous lead extraction. The primary objective was to evaluate the acute and long-term safety of transvenous lead extraction. Secondary objectives were to describe the characteristics of patients, leads, indications, techniques, and outcomes. The complication rate in low and high volume (30 or more transvenous lead extraction per year) centres was compared.

Data were collected using a web-based system. No specific protocol for the procedure, materials, techniques of extraction, or treatment after the procedure was mandated during this observational study. Patients were followed up 12 months after discharge to assess long-term safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction.

The rate of in-hospital procedure-related major complications (the primary endpoint) was 1.7%, including a mortality rate of 0.5%, with no significant differences between high and low volume centres. High volume centres had significantly lower overall in-hospital major complications (2.4% vs. 4.1%) and deaths (1.2% vs. 2.5%) compared to low volume centres. In a multivariable analysis, extraction in a low volume centre was associated with a doubled risk of death from all causes during the hospital stay and a doubled risk of clinical failure of the procedure.

Bongiorni says, “Patients who undergo transvenous lead extraction in a low volume centre are more likely to die or have a major complication during the hospital stay. The outcome of transvenous lead extraction is not confined to the procedure per se but is dependent on multiple patient factors and comorbidities that require an advanced and highly skilled multidisciplinary team management that may only be facilitated in high volume centres. In the event of cardiac major complications occurring after the procedure, patients may often be saved, if complications are recognised and treated promptly.”

She adds, “The ELECTRa registry was not designed to define the minimum number of procedures needed to reduce complications and increase success, but if we extrapolate from the data it appears that centres should perform at least 40 to 50 transvenous lead extraction per year.”

The overall efficacy of transvenous lead extraction was high, with 97% clinical and 96% complete radiological success rates. High volume centres achieved radiological (96.2% vs 93.4%) and clinical (97.3% vs. 94.3%) success more frequently than low volume centres. “The success of contemporary transvenous lead extraction is high, independent from the technique used, but aggressive tools like powered sheaths are less safe,” says Bongiorni. “Infection was the most common reason for transvenous lead extraction (53% of cases), followed by lead malfunction.”

Procedure-related major complications and deaths were more common in women (odds ratio [OR] 2.11), and lead dwell time more than ten years (OR 3.54). Predictors of clinical failure included female gender (OR 1.81), three or more leads for extraction (OR 2.47), and lead dwell time more than ten years (OR 4). Bongiorni says, “Women have smaller and weaker blood vessels which are more vulnerable to damage. When leads are in the body for a long time, the risk of fibrosis increases, the adhesions become tenacious, and the operator needs more energy to detach them from the veins which may cause complications.”

She concludes, “Transvenous lead extraction is safe and effective, with a low incidence of life-threatening complications. Outcomes may improve even further if centres perform at least 40 to 50 procedures per year.”