Comparison of outcomes and required tools between transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: Insight from single high‐volume center experience

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionReports of comparison with procedural outcomes for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are old and limited. We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural properties of ICD and PM TLE and assess the impact of lead age.MethodsThe study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD and PM TLE in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry between 2013 and 2022. Extraction success, complications, and failure employed the definitions described in the HRS 2017 TLE guidelines.ResultsA total of 885 ICD leads, a median implant duration of 8 (5−11) years in 810 patients, and 1352 PM leads of 7 (3−13) years in 807 patients were included. Procedural success rates in ICD patients were superior to those of PM in >20 years leads but similar in ≤20 years leads. In the PM group, the complete success rate of TLE decreased significantly according to the increase of lead age, but not in the ICD group. ICD TLE required more extraction tools compared with PM TLE but cases with older leads required non‐laser sheath extraction tools in both groups. The most common injury site in major complication cases differed between ICD and PM TLE, although major complication rates showed no difference in both groups (2.7% vs. 1.6%, p = .12).ConclusionThe procedural success rate by TLE is greater for ICD patients than PM patients with leads >20 years old but requires more extraction tools. Common vascular complication sites and the impact of lead age on procedural outcomes and required tools differed between ICD and PM TLE.