Clinical cardiology · 2020
Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in patients with lead perforation: A single-center experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Xu, Ze Feng, Li Ding, Wang Long, Guo Jihong, Li Xuebin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Management of cardiac perforation caused by the lead of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is currently unclear. This study evaluated the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with cardiac perforation caused by a transvenous lead.
HYPOTHESIS: Removal of perforated lead by transvenous approach is safe and effective.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients diagnosed with cardiac perforation by a pacing or defibrillator lead in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to January 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who were managed by TLE.
RESULTS: A total of 53 patients (30 men; mean age: 67 ± 15 years) with lead perforation managed by TLE were included. Most of the perforated leads (94.9%) were pacemaker leads. Forty-three leads (81.1%) were implanted within 1 year. Ten patients with a high risk of hemopericardium underwent percutaneous subxiphoid pericardial puncture prior to TLE. All 53 culprit leads were removed completely without major complications. Simple traction with or without a locking stylet was sufficient in 51 patients (96.2%). Forty-eight patients (90.6%) had a new active-fixation lead reimplanted. No patients showed evidence of new-onset or worsening pericardial effusion during the procedure and hospital stay. During a median follow-up time of 16 months, no recurrence of symptoms associated with lead perforation or CIED-related infection were reported.
CONCLUSION: In most patients with lead perforation, TLE can be a safe and effective management approach.
HYPOTHESIS: Removal of perforated lead by transvenous approach is safe and effective.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients diagnosed with cardiac perforation by a pacing or defibrillator lead in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to January 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who were managed by TLE.
RESULTS: A total of 53 patients (30 men; mean age: 67 ± 15 years) with lead perforation managed by TLE were included. Most of the perforated leads (94.9%) were pacemaker leads. Forty-three leads (81.1%) were implanted within 1 year. Ten patients with a high risk of hemopericardium underwent percutaneous subxiphoid pericardial puncture prior to TLE. All 53 culprit leads were removed completely without major complications. Simple traction with or without a locking stylet was sufficient in 51 patients (96.2%). Forty-eight patients (90.6%) had a new active-fixation lead reimplanted. No patients showed evidence of new-onset or worsening pericardial effusion during the procedure and hospital stay. During a median follow-up time of 16 months, no recurrence of symptoms associated with lead perforation or CIED-related infection were reported.
CONCLUSION: In most patients with lead perforation, TLE can be a safe and effective management approach.