Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026
Subclinical Venous Injury in Transvenous Lead Extraction: Histological Correlation With Clinical Risk Factors.
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.
Lateef Azalfa U, Vardar Ufuk, Hochwald Alex, Nassar Aziza, Ladas Thomas, Chiriac Anca, Niekerk Christoffel Van, Kusumoto Fred, Kella Danesh K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a commonly performed and generally safe procedure, though procedural complexity and risk can vary based on clinical and procedural factors.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify clinical and procedural factors associated with histologic evidence of subclinical vascular injury, defined by elastin positivity on extracted leads and its clinical significance.
METHODS: Patients undergoing TLE with a lead dwell time of ≥ 1 year were included. Extracted leads with tissue were analyzed histologically using Verhoeff-Van Gieson staining to assess the presence of elastin. Demographic data, procedural and lead characteristics, and indication for extraction were obtained. Established extraction risk scores were calculated to determine efficacy in predicting subclinical vascular injury.
RESULTS: The cohort included 49 patients with 92 leads extracted. A total of 25 patients (51%) had elastin-positive leads. Complete procedural success occurred in 95.9% of cases. The multivariate regression model did not identify any independent predictors of elastin presence, including age (OR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.05; p = 0.89), female gender (OR = 3.04; 95% CI 0.67-13.65; p = 0.14), lead dwell time (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.98-1.29; p = 0.07). Additionally, no scoring system, such as the CCF, EROS, MB, SAFeTY, and LECOM, predicted the presence of elastin.
CONCLUSION: Subclinical venous injury was common following TLE, yet did not predict adverse clinical outcomes, reinforcing that TLE performed in experienced centers carries a favorable safety profile. Future studies in larger cohorts are needed to further characterize the clinical utility of subclinical vascular injury.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify clinical and procedural factors associated with histologic evidence of subclinical vascular injury, defined by elastin positivity on extracted leads and its clinical significance.
METHODS: Patients undergoing TLE with a lead dwell time of ≥ 1 year were included. Extracted leads with tissue were analyzed histologically using Verhoeff-Van Gieson staining to assess the presence of elastin. Demographic data, procedural and lead characteristics, and indication for extraction were obtained. Established extraction risk scores were calculated to determine efficacy in predicting subclinical vascular injury.
RESULTS: The cohort included 49 patients with 92 leads extracted. A total of 25 patients (51%) had elastin-positive leads. Complete procedural success occurred in 95.9% of cases. The multivariate regression model did not identify any independent predictors of elastin presence, including age (OR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.05; p = 0.89), female gender (OR = 3.04; 95% CI 0.67-13.65; p = 0.14), lead dwell time (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.98-1.29; p = 0.07). Additionally, no scoring system, such as the CCF, EROS, MB, SAFeTY, and LECOM, predicted the presence of elastin.
CONCLUSION: Subclinical venous injury was common following TLE, yet did not predict adverse clinical outcomes, reinforcing that TLE performed in experienced centers carries a favorable safety profile. Future studies in larger cohorts are needed to further characterize the clinical utility of subclinical vascular injury.