Volume 35, Issue 11 pp. 2128-2133
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Indications and outcomes of elective open chest lead extractions

Anshul R. Gupta MD, MS

Anshul R. Gupta MD, MS

Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author
John R. Power MD

John R. Power MD

University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Yang Yang MD

Yang Yang MD

University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Travis Pollema DO

Travis Pollema DO

University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Arman Arghami MD, MPH

Arman Arghami MD, MPH

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green MD

Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green MD

University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Yong-Mei Cha MD

Corresponding Author

Yong-Mei Cha MD

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Correspondence Yong-Mei Cha, MD, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 September 2024

Disclosures: None.

Abstract

Background

Complications associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices may necessitate device and lead removal. An open approach to removal may be electively chosen in cases with high risk of complications or those requiring additional concomitant cardiac surgery. This study aimed to investigate outcomes of patients who underwent elective open lead extractions (OLE) at two large tertiary care centers.

Methods

The records of 29 patients undergoing elective OLE were analyzed through retrospective chart review.

Results

69 total leads were extracted from 29 patients (77% completely, 23% partially). The average age of the oldest leads was 13.3 ± 11.3 years. Infective endocarditis with severe valvular insufficiency requiring valvular intervention (41%)—an infectious etiology, and tricuspid valve intervention to correct RV lead-related severe TR (38%)—a noninfectious etiology, were the most common reasons for OLE. 38% of the patients had additional co-primary or secondary indications for open extraction, such as CABG and pericardiectomies. The rate of major complications and procedural failure was 3% each (1/29). 30-day survival was 100%, and 1-year survival was 92%. The average length of hospital stay was 15 days and higher among those undergoing OLE for infectious indications.

Conclusion

Open lead extractions offered a similar clinical success rate (97%) to transvenous extractions in this cohort and may be a viable alternative for those necessitating valvular intervention or when the risk of complications from TLE is considered very high.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.