Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads
Do you wish to request the book?
Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads
2018
Overview
We investigated the effect of systemic infection or lead endocarditis on the complexity and the success of laser lead extraction (LLE) procedures. Medical records of all patients undergoing LLE between January 2012 and March 2017 were screened with regard to information on systemic infection or lead endocarditis. We treated 184 patients using high-frequency 80 Hz laser sheaths in patients with lead implant duration of ≥ 12 months. Indications for lead extraction were systemic infection and lead endocarditis in 52 cases (28.3%), local infection in 74 cases (40.2%), lead dysfunction in 37 cases (20.1%) and other indications in 21 cases (11.4%). 386 leads were scheduled for LLE: 235 (60.9%) pacing, 105 (27.2%) ICD and 46 (11.9%) CS leads. The mean time from initial lead implantation (systemic infection 96.8 ± 74.7 months vs. 102.1 ± 82.6 non-infected: months;
p
= 0.4155) and ratio of ICD leads (26.8 vs. 27.4%;
p
= 0.3411) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Complete procedural success was significantly higher in the systemic infection group (100 vs. 94.7%;
p
= 0.0077). The mean laser treatment (60.2 ± 48.7 vs. 72.4 ± 61.5 s;
p
= 0.2038) was numerically lower in the infection group, while fluoroscopy time (9.3 ± 7.6 vs. 12.8 ± 10.3 min;
p
= 0.0275) was significantly lower in this group. Minor and major complications were low in both groups and did not reveal any statistically significant difference (infected group: one minor complication; pocket hematoma, non-infected: three major complications; emergent sternotomy due to pericardial tamponade). No extraction related mortality was observed. The presence of systemic infection or lead endocarditis in LLE procedures allows for higher complete procedural success. When compared with LLE of non-infected leads, the infected leads require less laser and fluoroscopy times. Due to the scarcity of minor and major complications in general, no statistical significance was found in that regard.
Publisher
Springer Japan,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Adult
/ Aged
/ Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering
/ Defibrillators, Implantable - adverse effects
/ Defibrillators, Implantable - microbiology
/ Diabetes
/ Female
/ Hematoma
/ Humans
/ Lasers
/ Lasers, Excimer - therapeutic use
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Pacemaker, Artificial - adverse effects
/ Pacemaker, Artificial - microbiology
/ Patients
/ Postoperative Complications - diagnosis
/ Postoperative Complications - etiology
/ Postoperative Complications - surgery
/ Sepsis
/ Sheaths
/ Success
