Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023760›Full record

ArticleMaedica2023

Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Reimplant Strategy and Outcomes in a Single-Center Experience.

Mohamed Dardari, Corneliu Iorgulescu, Eliza Cinteza, Alexandru Deaconu, Alexandrina Nastasa, Corina Maria Vasile, Radu Vatasescu, Maria Dorobantu

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Maedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohamed DardariDepartment of Cardiology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Corneliu IorgulescuElectrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Lab, Clinical Emergency Hospital, 014461 Bucharest, Romania.
Eliza CintezaDepartment of Pediatrics, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Alexandru DeaconuDepartment of Cardiology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Alexandrina NastasaElias Emergency University Hospital, 011461, Bucharest, Romania.
Corina Maria VasilePediatric and Adult Congenital Cardiology Department, M3C National Reference Centre, Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
Radu VatasescuDepartment of Cardiology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Maria DorobantuDepartment of Cardiology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROClinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest · ROUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are now widely used worldwide and the numbers are increasing exponentially. Subsequently, long-term complications have increased. Transvenous lead-extraction (TLE) is the gold standard for removing infected devices, treating systemic device-related infections including endocarditis, and removing devices for other non-infectious complications. Most patients still require device therapy after TLE for several indications, including lifesaving defibrillation or pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients. The decision to reimplant is challenging, particularly when the primary cause for device removal includes device-related infections and patients frequently are pacemaker dependent. We aim to present our strategy for reimplanting after performing TLE in 88 consecutive patients. We performed transvenous removal of 150 pacemaker and defibrillator leads, of which 74% for local or systemic infection. We report a 99.3% clinical success after TLE. Out of 88 patients who had undergone TLE and after reanalysing the device indication, 67 patients (76%) still had indication for device removal, but three of them refused to undergo reimplant and 58 were re-implanted. Of the re-implanted patients, 58.6% were implanted on the contra-lateral side, 38% on the ipsilateral side and two patients who had been previously implanted with ICD were reimplanted with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Up to 34.4% of patients were re-implanted during the same TLE procedure, which was performed for device up-grade in patients with venous occlusion, 24% were implanted during the same hospital admission for TLE but not during TLE, and 41.3% were discharged and reimplanted afterwards. With this strategy for reimplantation, we report no re-infections and no device-removal-related arrhythmic major events or deaths during one-year follow-up. In conclusion, most patients still require device therapy after TLE. In patients with previous infection of the device, the reimplantation strategy should be carefully analyzed to prevent infection relapse and limit the consequences of the absence of the device.

Identifiers

PMID38023760
PMCPMC10674130
OpenAlexW4388997441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.