Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31034499›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Transvenous lead extraction with laser reduces need for femoral approach during the procedure.

Arwa Younis, Michael Glikson, Amit Meitus, Noga Arwas, Sharon Shalom Natanzon, Dor Lotan, David Luria, Roy Beinart, Eyal Nof

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Arwa YounisThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-2485-5025
Michael GliksonThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Amit MeitusThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Noga ArwasThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Sharon Shalom NatanzonThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Dor LotanThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
David LuriaHeart Center, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Roy BeinartThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Eyal NofThe Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Tel Aviv University · ILSheba Medical Center · ILShaare Zedek Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) trans venous lead extraction (TLE) is technically challenging. Whether the use of a laser sheath reduces complications and improves outcomes is still in debate. We therefore aimed at comparing our experience with and without laser in a large referral center.

methodsInformation of all patients undergoing TLE was collected prospectively. We retrospectively compared procedural outcomes prior to the introduction of the laser sheath lead extraction technique to use of laser sheath.

resultsDuring the years 2007-2017, there were 850 attempted lead removals in 407 pts. Of them, 339 (83%) were extracted due to infection, device upgrade/lead malfunction in 42 (10%) cases, and other (7%). Complete removal (radiological success) of all leads was achieved in (88%). Partial removal was achieved in another 6% of the patients. Comparison of cases prior to and after laser technique introduction, showed that with laser, a significantly smaller proportion of cases required conversion to femoral approach [31/275 (6%) laser vs. 40/132 (15%) non-laser; p<0.001]. However, success rates of removal [259/275 (94%) vs. 124/132 (94%) respectively; p = 0.83] and total complication rates [35 (13%) vs. 19 (14%) respectively; p = 0.86] did not differ prior to and after laser use. In multivariate analysis, laser-assisted extraction was an independent predictor for no need for femoral extraction (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.69; p = 0.01).

conclusionIntroduction of laser lead removal resulted in decreased need to convert to femoral approach, albeit without improving success rates or preventing major complications.

Indexed as

Electrodes, ImplantedPacemaker, ArtificialAgedAged, 80 and overDevice RemovalEquipment FailureFemaleFemoral VeinHumansLasersMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSubclavian VeinTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31034499
PMCPMC6488060
OpenAlexW2943008626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.