ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Procedural outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads: experience from a large single centre.
Article in 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, 2025. 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.
- Transvenous Lead Extraction Using a Stepwise Bailout Strategy: A Single-Center Experience with Wrap-Around Rescue in Selected Bailout Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- An Individualized Right-to-Left Tunneling "Bail-Out" for Complex ICD Upgrade in a Pacemaker-Dependent Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Transvenous Lead Extraction Complicated by Lead Breakage: A Predictive Model Based on Analysis of the EXTRACT Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWith the rapid growth of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, lead management has become increasingly challenging. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is now a primary approach for addressing lead-related complications. However, data on TLE in patients with abandoned leads remain limited. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with abandoned leads. METHODS AND
resultsConsecutive patients undergoing TLE between January 2013 and January 2021 were enrolled and stratified into two groups: those with abandoned leads presence (Group 1) and those with active leads only (Group 2). The primary safety endpoint was major complications, and the effectiveness endpoint was clinical success of lead extraction. Among 1109 patients (median age 68 years; 70.7% male), 293 (26.4%) had abandoned leads (Group 1), while 816 (73.6%) did not (Group 2). A total of 2222 leads were extracted. Group 1 exhibited a higher number of leads per patient [2.0 (2.0-3.0) vs. 2.0 (2.0-2.0), P < 0.001], longer dwell time of the oldest lead [120.0 (72.0-174.0) vs. 48.0 (16.0-96.0) months, P < 0.001], a higher prevalence of CIED infection (94.9 vs. 87.4%, P < 0.001) and venous stenosis (51.5 vs. 38.8%, P = 0.001), and a higher proportion of MB scores ≥5 (45.1 vs. 15.0%, P < 0.001) and EROS 3 stratification (23.2 vs. 5.0%, P < 0.001). Clinical success was achieved in 1080 patients (97.4%), with major complications observed in 19 patients (1.7%). No significant differences were found between groups in major complication rates (2.4 vs. 1.5%, P = 0.299) or clinical success rates (96.2 vs. 97.8%, P = 0.154). Group 1 had lower manual traction success rate (8.9 vs. 37.5%, P < 0.001), required more advanced tools or multi-venous approaches (8.5 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), and showed higher rate of surgical extraction (3.1 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.030) and emergency thoracotomy (1.4 vs. 0.1%, P = 0.019). The dwell time of the oldest lead and number of leads removed mediated procedural risks. Multivariate analysis identified the dwell time of the oldest lead [odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.21, P < 0.001] and the number of leads removed (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.29-3.21, P = 0.002) as independent predictors of failure. Similarly, the dwell time of the oldest lead (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.18, P < 0.001) and the number of leads removed (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.28, P = 0.033) independently predicted complications.
conclusionTransvenous lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads is characterized by clinical feasibility and effectiveness. However, the presence of abandoned leads is associated with increased procedural complexity, necessitating more frequent utilization of advanced extraction tools. The adverse consequences provide a clinical rationale for prophylactic removal of non-functional leads.
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.