Procedural outcomes and long-term survival associated with lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads.

BACKGROUND

The decision to abandon or extract superfluous sterile leads is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare procedural outcomes and long-term survival of patients with and those without abandoned leads undergoing lead extraction (LE).

METHODS

Retrospective review of all patients who had undergone transvenous LE at our institution from January 2007 to May 2016 was performed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of abandoned leads.

RESULTS

Among 774 patients who had undergone LE procedures, 38 (4.9%) had abandoned leads (group 1). Dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was longer in group 1 vs group 2 (7.6 ± 4.9 years vs 5.6 ± 4.4 years; P = .017), as was infection as an indication for LE (76% vs 33%; P <.001). A bailout femoral approach was more commonly required in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs 6%; P = .007). Complete procedural success rates were similar (92.1% in group 1 vs 95.0% in group 2; P = .439), but there was a trend toward lower clinical success in group 1 (92.1% vs 97.4%; P = .088), primarily due to failure to remove all hardware in the setting of infection. Major procedural complication rates were similar (2.6% in group 1 vs 1.2% in group 2; P = .397), as was long-term survival (mean follow-up 2.3 ± 2.2 years).

CONCLUSION

Abandoned leads at the time of LE were associated with increased procedural complexity, including a higher rate of bailout femoral extraction, and may be associated with lower clinical success. Among appropriately selected patients, consideration should be given to LE instead of abandonment.