ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Comparative durability of pacemaker leads in transvenous lead extraction: An evaluation through bench testing.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transvenous Lead Extraction Complicated by Lead Breakage: A Predictive Model Based on Analysis of the EXTRACT Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Tandem Approach for Transvenous Lead Extraction: Efficacy, Safety, and Operational Learning Curve.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a less invasive alternative to surgical removal, but leads may break during TLE. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the tensile strength and behavior under stress of leads from different manufacturers during TLE using different extraction techniques. Methods: Different lead types (Tendril STS, INGEVITY, INGEVITY+, Solia S, and CapSure Fix) were subjected to tensile testing using a testing machine. The leads were tested in up to 3 different configurations: terminal removed, terminal retained, and removal using a snare. Lead durability was assessed by increasing force and measuring elongation and the force required for complete disruption. Results: The tensile strength of leads varied greatly based on the extraction technique and lead type. The INGEVITY leads showed improved durability when secured with a snare, despite weak performance when the terminal was removed or retained. The INGEVITY+ lead exhibited enhanced durability, particularly when removed using a snare. The Tendril STS lead exhibited the least durability when the terminal was removed but had comparable durability to the Solia S and CapSure Fix leads when the terminal was retained. The Solia S and CapSure Fix leads had consistent higher durability, irrespective of whether or not the terminal was removed. Conclusion: This study found wide variability of lead behavior among manufacturers and with different extraction techniques. Terminal retention and snare usage enhanced lead durability, suggesting that these techniques should be considered depending on lead type and for leads with longer implantation periods or if higher extraction forces are anticipated.
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.