Abstract
Introduction: We evaluated the influences of selected factors on electrical lead failure (ELF) occurrence in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedures.
Methods and results: The study cohort consisted of 432 patients referred for TLE procedures due to various indications (42 – lead-dependent infective endocarditis, 47 – pocket infection, 343 – noninfectious indications) with a total of 804 endocardial leads. In the analyzed group, there were 192 patients with ELF, denoted as group ELF(+) (200 malfunctioning endocardial leads).
The percentage of women was higher in the ELF(+) group than in the ELF(-) group (42.7% vs 30.0%; P = 0.006). The ELF(+) patients had more endocardial leads implanted via subclavian vein puncture (80.0% vs 72.4%; P = 0.032), had more indwelling leads in the cardiovascular system (1.94 vs 1.8; P = 0.03), were older (68.9 vs 66.0 years old; P = 0.028), and had better left ventricular ejection fractions than the ELF(-) patients (48.0% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001). The time interval to ELF occurrence was significantly longer for pacing leads than for cardioverter-defibrillator leads (95.7 vs 65.7 months; P = 0.016). The most important factor associated with ELF was subclavian vein puncture, increasing the risk of ELF occurrence by 2.5-fold and 2.7-fold in the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, respectively. The presence of a cardioverter-defibrillator lead increased the risk of ELF by 1.9-fold and 2.7-fold in the univariate and multivariate models, respectively.
Conclusion: The most significant factors predisposing patients to ELF are the lead implantation approach and the presence of a cardioverter-defibrillator lead.
Methods and results: The study cohort consisted of 432 patients referred for TLE procedures due to various indications (42 – lead-dependent infective endocarditis, 47 – pocket infection, 343 – noninfectious indications) with a total of 804 endocardial leads. In the analyzed group, there were 192 patients with ELF, denoted as group ELF(+) (200 malfunctioning endocardial leads).
The percentage of women was higher in the ELF(+) group than in the ELF(-) group (42.7% vs 30.0%; P = 0.006). The ELF(+) patients had more endocardial leads implanted via subclavian vein puncture (80.0% vs 72.4%; P = 0.032), had more indwelling leads in the cardiovascular system (1.94 vs 1.8; P = 0.03), were older (68.9 vs 66.0 years old; P = 0.028), and had better left ventricular ejection fractions than the ELF(-) patients (48.0% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001). The time interval to ELF occurrence was significantly longer for pacing leads than for cardioverter-defibrillator leads (95.7 vs 65.7 months; P = 0.016). The most important factor associated with ELF was subclavian vein puncture, increasing the risk of ELF occurrence by 2.5-fold and 2.7-fold in the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, respectively. The presence of a cardioverter-defibrillator lead increased the risk of ELF by 1.9-fold and 2.7-fold in the univariate and multivariate models, respectively.
Conclusion: The most significant factors predisposing patients to ELF are the lead implantation approach and the presence of a cardioverter-defibrillator lead.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1217-1223 |
| Journal | Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| Early online date | 28 Jul 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sep 2018 |