Marek Czajkowski

Background: Removal of spontaneously fractured leads with their proximal ends migrated into the vascular space has not been analysed in detail thus far. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and auxiliary tools for removing fractured leads with migrated proximal ends. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 72 cases from a database containing 3847 TLEs (transvenous lead extraction). Results: Most of the leads were passive, especially unipolar. Procedure complexity in such cases was high but with satisfying effectiveness (procedural success rate 93.06%) and independent of the position of the proximal end. The rate of major complications was 2.78%, which may be attributed to long implant duration (152.2 months). Extraction of such leads did not influence long-term survival. The femoral approach was most often used (62.50%). In 79.16% of leads, mechanical dissection was required. In 66.7%, proximal ends were strongly attached to the wall, and a loop had to be applied. In 15.28% of procedures, the lead was wrapped around a pig-tail catheter (“spaghetti twisting technique”). Conclusions: (1) Spontaneous lead fracture with the proximal ends migrated into the vascular space is a rare finding (1.87% of the TLE). (2) Removal of such leads requires the use of different approaches as well as dedicated and non-dedicated tools. (3) Despite a high level of procedure complexity, its effectiveness is high, with an acceptable rate of major complications.

Background: Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature.Methods: Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures.Results: A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free‐floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long‐term mortality.Conclusions: (1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success—57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a “subclavian workstation” for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

Background: There are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for LB removal during 127 procedures. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead defined as LB with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78% and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04%. In cases in which lead remnant was equivalent to a lead fragment (more than the lead tip only) there was a 50.31% chance of removing the LF in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity: long lead dwell time [OR=1.018], higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures and extraction of passive fixation leads. A superior approach was the most popular (75.59%), femoral (15.75%) and combined (8.66%) approaches were the least common. Broken lead fragments (BLFs) were removed in their entirety in 63.78% and BLF length was significantly reduced (to less than 4 cm) in 24.41%. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (66.67%), either free-floating or in the pulmonary circulation (68.42%) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0%). Complete procedural success was achieved in 70.87% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall and short BLFs were found in 25.98%, whereas BLFs > 4 cm were left in place in 3.15% of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96% and 1.53%). There was no procedure-related death among such patients and LB did not affect survival after TLE. Conclusions: 1. LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures and it increases procedure complexity and risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning lead extraction strategy and training. 2. Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory. 3.Risk factors for lead fracture are implant duration (16.27 years on average), ventricular leads (71.65%), passive fixation leads (97.63%) and pacemaker leads (92.13%), but not ICD leads (only 7.87% of lead fractures). 4. Broken lead removal using a coronary sinus access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention.

Background: Spontaneous fractures and insulation breaks of the intracardiac leads near their entry into the venous system cause the proximal end of the fractured lead slide into the veins, with potential subsequent looping in the heart and secondary complications. So far, this topic has not been extensively studied. As it is a relatively uncommon finding, it has been described in a few number of case studies only. The aim of the study was to describe the phenomenon of leads migrated proximal end (LMPEs) into the cardiovascular system and techniques for such leads removal. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3847 transvenous lead extractions (TLE). Results: Over a 17-year period 72 (1.87%) leads with migrated proximal ends (LMPEs) (mean dwell time 148.0 months) were extracted, mainly ventricular leads (56.94%). Overall, 68.06% of MPLEs had their cut proximal ends located in the venous system. Most of them were pacing (95.83%) and passive fixation (98.61%) leads. Independent risk factors for LMPEs included abandoned leads (OR=8.473; p<0.001) and leads on both sides of the chest (2.981; p=0.045). Higher NYHA class lowered the probability of leads with migrated proximal ends (LMPEs) (OR=0.380; p<0.001). Extraction complexity was higher in the MPLE group than in remained patients. Femoral approach was most often used (62.50%), contrary to superior (23.61%) and combined approach (11.11%). Lead dilatation was necessary in 80.56%, and grasping and traction was effective in 18.06%. In 66.7%, the proximal end was strongly attached to the wall and a pulling loop had to be applied. In 15.28% of procedures the lead was wrapped around a pig-tail catheter ("spaghetti twisting technique"), which was sometimes sufficient to free the lead end. This manoeuvre was especially helpful in releasing the leads with their tip in the distal branch of the pulmonary artery. All these manoeuvres were performed from the femoral or superior approach, depending on the anatomical conditions. Extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival. The rate of major complications was 2.78% but it may be attributed to long implant duration (152.2 months) and were not the result of extraction of LMPEs. Conclusions: 1. Extraction of leads with migrated proximal ends (LMPEs) is rare among other TLE procedures (1.9%), 2. Risk factors include abandoned leads and presence of leads on both sides of the chest. 3. Complexity of LMPEs extraction is higher as regards procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of advanced tools and techniques but rates of major complications are comparable to other leads but in spite of a high level of procedure complexity its effectiveness is also high (procedural success rate 93.06%) with an acceptable rate of major complications. 4. Extraction of LMPEs did not influence long-term survival.

Background: The study aimed to describe the phenomenon of leads migrated (MPLE) into the cardiovascular system (CVS). Methods: Retrospective analysis of 3847 transvenous lead extractions (TLE). Results: Over a 17-year period, 72 (1.87%) MPLEs (median dwell time 137.5 months) were extracted, which included mainly ventricular leads (56.94%). Overall, 68.06% of MPLEs had their cut proximal ends in the venous system. Most of them were pacing (95.83%) and passive fixation (98.61%) leads. Independent risk factors for MPLE included abandoned leads (OR = 8.473; p < 0.001) and leads located on both sides of the chest (2.981; p = 0.045). The higher NYHA class lowered the probability of MPLE (OR = 0.380; p < 0.001). Procedure complexity was higher in the MPLE group (procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of additional (advanced) tools and alternative venous approach). There were no more major complications in the MPLE group, but the rate of procedural success was lower due to more frequent retention of non-removable lead fragments. Extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival. Conclusions: 1. Extraction of leads with MPLE is rare among other TLE procedures (1.9%), 2. risk factors include abandoned leads and presence of leads on both sides of the chest but a higher NYHA class lowers the probability of MPLE, 3. complexity of MPLE extraction is higher regarding procedure duration, unexpected procedure difficulties, use of advanced tools and techniques but rates of major complications are comparable, and 4. extraction of MPLEs did not influence long-term survival.

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Background and Objectives: The nature of multilevel lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (MLVSO) and its influence on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) as well as long-term survival remains poorly understood. Materials and Methods: A total of 3002 venograms obtained before a TLE were analyzed to identify the risk factors for MLVSO, as well as the procedure effectiveness and long-term survival. Results: An older patient age at the first system implantation (OR = 1.015; p < 0.001), the number of leads in the heart (OR = 1.556; p < 0.001), the placement of the coronary sinus (CS) lead (OR = 1.270; p = 0.027), leads on both sides of the chest (OR = 7.203; p < 0.001), and a previous device upgrade or downgrade with lead abandonment (OR = 2.298; p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of MLVSO. Conclusions: The presence of MLVSO predisposes patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) to the development of infectious complications. Patients with multiple narrowed veins are likely to undergo longer and more complex procedures with complications, and the rates of clinical and procedural success are lower in this group. Long-term survival after a TLE is similar in patients with MLVSO and those without venous obstruction. MLVSO probably better depicts the severity of global venous obstruction than the degree of vein narrowing at only one point.

Background: Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs. Results: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480]. Conclusions: Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Background: There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old. Methods: Retrospective 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). Results: Rate 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. Conclusions: 1. 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.

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio‐venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers.Materials and Methods: The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function.Results: A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula.Conclusion: (1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free‐from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.