SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Techniques for Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Techniques for Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Network Meta-Analysis.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Long-Term Mortality Following Transvenous Lead Extraction: Data from 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransvenous lead extraction (TLE) is procedurally complex and carries significant risk. Evidence on optimal TLE techniques is limited and lacks comparative studies.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched through November 27, 2024. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) comparing two or more TLE methods in adults undergoing lead extraction. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled outcomes with 95% CIs. P-scores ranked treatments.
resultsEleven non-RCTs and one RCT were included. No statistically significant differences were observed in patient-level clinical success or lead-level procedural success. The femoral approach was associated with a significantly lower risk of significant complications compared to the use of laser sheaths (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.89). Rotating mechanical sheaths (RMS) ranked highest for clinical (p = 0.7470) and procedural success (p = 0.7357), while the femoral approach ranked highest for safety (p = 0.8368). Laser sheaths ranked lowest across all outcomes.
conclusionNo single technique was superior in terms of success rates. RMS and the femoral approach had the highest rankings for efficacy and safety, respectively. Laser sheaths ranked lowest for both. Rigorous prospective studies with direct comparative analyses are required to establish evidence-based protocols and improve TLE patient outcomes.
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.