Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28811391›Full record

Observational studyAnatolian journal of cardiology2017

Cardiac implantable electronic device lead extraction using the lead-locking device system: keeping it simple, safe, and inexpensive with mechanical tools and local anesthesia.

Antonis S Manolis, Georgios Georgiopoulos, Sofia Metaxa, Spyridon Koulouris, Dimitris Tsiachris

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase ReportsObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Lead extraction and contrast venography.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018
    Article
  5. Author`s Reply.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018
    Article
  6. Author`s Reply.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018
    Article
  7. Lead extraction: Definition standards.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018
    Article
  8. Transvenous lead extraction: Can it be simple yet safe?Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonis S ManolisThird Department of Cardiology, Athens University School of Medicine; Athens-Greece. asm@otenet.gr.
Georgios Georgiopoulos
Sofia Metaxa
Spyridon Koulouris
Dimitris Tsiachris
Ippokrateio General Hospital of Thessaloniki · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe have previously reported our successful approach for percutaneous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction using inexpensive tools, which we have continued over the years. Herein we report the results of the systematic use of a unique stylet, the lead-locking device (LLD), which securely locks the entire lead lumen, aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths in 54 patients to extract 98 CIED leads.

methodsThis prospective observational clinical study included 38 men and 16 women aged 68.9±13.1 years undergoing lead extraction for device infection (n=46), lead malfunction (n=5), or prior to defibrillator implant (n=3). Leads were in place for 6.7±4.3 years. Infections were more commonly due to Staphylococcus species (n=40). There were 78 pacing (31 ventricular, 37 atrial, 4 VDD, and 6 coronary sinus leads) and 20 defibrillating leads.

resultsUsing simple traction (6 leads) and the LLD stylets (92 leads) aided with telescoping sheaths (15 patients), 96 (98%) leads in 52 (96.3%) patients were successfully removed, with all but one leads removed using a subclavian approach; in 1 patient, the right femoral approach was also required. In 2 patients, distal fragments from one ventricular pacing and one defibrillating lead could not be removed. Finally, lead removal was completely (52/54) (96.3%) or partially (2/54) (3.7%) successful in 54 patients for 96 of 98 leads (98%) without major complications.

conclusionPercutaneous lead extraction can be successful with mechanical tools using the LLD locking stylet aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths through a simplified, safe, and inexpensive procedure using local anesthesia.

Indexed as

Electrodes, ImplantedPacemaker, ArtificialAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthesia, LocalArrhythmias, CardiacDevice RemovalEquipment FailureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28811391
PMCPMC5731525
OpenAlexW2742189560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.