Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36361063›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years-A Large Cohort Study.

Andrzej Kutarski, Andrzej Głowniak, Jarosław Kosior, Wojciech Jacheć, Dorota Nowosielecka, Marek Czajkowski, Anna Polewczyk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrzej KutarskiDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.
Andrzej GłowniakDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5398-4179
Jarosław KosiorDepartment of Cardiology, Masovian Specialist Hospital in Radom, 20-617 Radom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8526-0500
Wojciech Jacheć2nd Department of Cardiology, Silesian Medical University, 41-808 Zabrze, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1091-9788
Dorota NowosieleckaDepartment of Cardiology, Pope John Paul II Hospital of Zamość, 22-400 Zamość, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2441-3876
Marek CzajkowskiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, 20-954 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9732-8349
Anna PolewczykDepartment of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Clinical Immunology, Collegium Medicum of Jan Kochanowski University, 25-317 Kielce, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6632-6551
Medical University of Lublin · PLJan Kochanowski University · PLJohn Paul II Hospital · PLRadom College · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old.

methodsRetrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old).

resultsRate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3-6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium-from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage-from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery-from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10-20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20-30 years-14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years-20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads.

conclusions1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.

Indexed as

Defibrillators, ImplantablePacemaker, ArtificialPericardial EffusionAdultCohort StudiesDevice RemovalFemaleHumansLeadRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultLeadeffectiveness lead extractionold lead extractionold leadssafety of lead extractiontransvenous lead extraction

Identifiers

PMID36361063
PMCPMC9655673
OpenAlexW4307940852

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.