title: Pacemaker and ICD lead extraction with electrosurgical dissection sheaths and standard transvenous extraction systems: results of a randomized trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transvenous pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead extraction with an electrosurgical dissection sheath (EDS) system in a single-centre experience. Methods Over 10 years, 462 patients have undergone transvenous lead extraction in our institution. From these, 120 consecutive patients (with 161 leads) were randomized to either radiofrequency (RF) current supported extraction or standard countertraction lead removal (60 patients in each arm, 96 men and 24 women). The mean age of randomized patients was 62.7 +/- 9.6 years. In 16 patients, we explanted 17 ICD leads. The average time from the date of implantation to the extraction procedure was 73.4 +/- 15.7 months. The most common reason for lead extraction was infection (95.6%). Results The complete extraction of 78 leads (93%) was achieved in the RF group and 56 leads (73%) with the standard transvenous lead extraction system by counter-traction (P < 0.01). Among these leads, we successfully removed nine of 10 ICD leads (90%) in the RF group and only four of seven ICD leads (57%) in the standard group. We also observed a significant reduction in the time taken for the successful removal of pacemaker and ICD leads using the RF system (9.6 +/- 6.2 min versus 21 +/- 9 min, P < 0.01). Partial success was achieved in six patients with the RF system and in 11 with standard sheaths. In those cases where we failed to remove the lead from the body we sent all but one patient to cardiac surgery. Serious complications were associated with the standard system in two patients, both of whom developed septic pulmonary embolization. Serious bleeding occurred in three patients, one with standard and two with the EDS lead extraction system.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The EDS extraction system is significantly more effective and quicker. However, the standard counter-traction method is still an effective alternative when used in a highly experienced centre.
authors.affiliation: Cardiology Department, Na Homolce Hospital, Roentgenova 2, Prague 515030, Czech Republic. petr.neuzil@homolka.cz
authors.forename: Petr
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Neuzil
authors.forename: Milos
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taborsky
authors.forename: Zdenek
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Rezek
authors.forename: Roman
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Vopalka
authors.forename: Lucie
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sediva
authors.forename: Petr
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Niederle
authors.forename: Vivek
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Reddy
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001424:Bacterial Infections / Q000150:complications; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D020878:Device Removal / Q000379:methods*; D004567:Electrodes, Implanted; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial / Q000009:adverse effects; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013525:Surgical Instruments; D016896:Treatment Outcome