Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

(1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Published
2024-08-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16398
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

Dorota Nowosielecka, Sebastian Sawonik, Jarosław Kosior, Wojciech Jacheć et al.
1 citations
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
0.40
article

Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

Dorota Nowosielecka, Sebastian Sawonik, Jarosław Kosior, Wojciech Jacheć, Andrzej Kutarski, Łukasz Tułecki, Paweł Stefańczyk, Radosław Pietura, Marek Czakowski
article en
1 citations

Abstract

(1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

Journal of Cardiovascular ElectrophysiologyVol. 35(10)
Medical University of Lublin (PL), Medical University of Silesia (PL), Radom College (PL), John Paul II Hospital (PL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
0.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools — Dorota Nowosielecka, Sebastian Sawonik, et al. · Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS