ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2019
Lead Removal Without Extraction Tools: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker/Defibrillator Leads-A Single-Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- In-Hospital and Midterm Outcomes of Lead Extraction: A Single-Center Clinical Study.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIndications 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.
objectiveThe 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.