This website is intended for healthcare professionals only

Trending Topic

16 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for global cardiovascular disease, responsible for an estimated 10.8 million deaths and more than 200 million disability-adjusted life years annually.1 Despite the availability of effective pharmacological and lifestyle interventions, prevalence continues to rise, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where over three-quarters of all cases now occur.2 The condition’s […]

46/Transvenous lead extraction: a single-centre experience of the Tandem procedure

MM Gallagher (Presenting Author) – St George’s University Hospital, London; Z Akhtar – St George’s University Hospital, London; LWM Leung – St George’s University Hospital, London; M Sohal – St George’s University Hospital, London
< 1 min
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Published Online: Oct 9th 2012 European Journal of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology. 2022;8(Suppl. 1):abstr46
Select a Section…
1

Article

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is integral to the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). There are notable procedural risks; however, development of techniques has contributed to an improvement in safety. The mechanical rotational dissecting sheath is safe and efficacious whilst the Needle’s Eye Snare (NES) is an additional ‘bail-out’ strategy. We compared the conventional TLE technique with the ‘Tandem’ procedure.

Methods: The ‘Tandem’ procedure consisted of extraction with the rotational powered sheath from the superior access, in combination with the NES providing countertraction on the lead via the femoral vein. Thirty-seven consecutive ‘Tandem’ procedures (73 targeted leads) performed between 1/12/2021–1/1/2022 in our high-volume TLE institute were matched with 37 conventional TLE procedures (72 leads) (control) using propensity 1:1 score matching. The patients were matched for age, BMI, gender and LVEF.

Results: Compared with the control, the Tandem group had a significantly longer lead dwell time (96 ± 67 months vs 147.3 ± 74 months; p<0.05), requiring a shorter procedure duration (136 ± 64 minutes vs 94 ± 38 minutes; p<0.02), with more fluoroscopy (9.7 ± 8.5 minutes vs 18.6 ± 11.9 minutes; p<0.01). Clinical success was similar between the control and Tandem groups (97% vs 100%; p=0.4) as was complete success (per lead) (95% vs 92%; p=0.7), with a comparable major (5% vs 0%; p=0.4) and minor (0% vs 3%; p=0.57) complication rate; there was no difference in 30-day mortality (3% vs 0%; p=0.4).

Conclusion: The ‘Tandem’ procedure provides an additional strategy to improve the safety and efficacy of TLE, especially in leads of a long dwell time.

2

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Close Popup