Abstract:Background and Objectives: The number of cardiac pacemakers being used has increased in recent decades, and this increase has led to a rise in device-related complications, requiring percutaneous device extraction. Our aim was to present our single-center clinical experience in percutaneous lead extractions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed an observational retrospective cohort study of 93 patients for the transvenous removal of a total of 163 endocardial leads. We evaluated the device details, indications, lead characteristics, extraction methods, complications, reimplantation procedure, follow-up data, effectiveness, and safety. Results: Patients' mean age was 68.6 ± 11.6 years. Lead extraction indications were pocket infection in 33 (35.5%), lead dysfunction in 33 (35.5%), and system upgrade in 21 (23%) cases, and lead endocarditis in 6 (6%) cases. The duration from implantation to extraction time was a detected median of 43 (24-87) months. The most common retracted lead type was the RV defibrillator lead (62%), and the lead fixation type was active for one hundred (61%) patients. A new device was inserted in 74 (80%) patients, and the device type was most commonly a CRT-D (61%). Patients were followed up at a median of 17 (8-36) months, and 18 patients (19%) died at follow-up. Complete procedural success was obtained in 78 (84%) patients, and clinical procedural success was obtained in 83 (89%) patients. Procedural failure was detected in 15 (16%) patients. Major and minor complications were detected in 10 (11%) and 6 (6.5%) patients, respectively. The most common minor complication was pocket hematoma. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that transvenous lead extraction has a high success rate with an acceptable risk of procedural complications. The simple manual traction method has a high rate of procedural success, despite a high dwell time of the lead.

Strategies to maximize lead tensile strength during extraction in three families of pacing leads.

Re-evaluation of Transvenous Lead Extraction with Modified Standard Technique: a Prospective Study in 229 Patients.

Tines Made of Degradable Materials with Decreasing Removal Forces: an Option to Facilitate Passive-Fixation Leads Extraction from the Very Beginning?

Traditional and Non-traditional Lead Extraction Techniques

Snare Sheath Versus Evolution Sheath In Transvenous Lead Extraction

Impact of fixation mechanism and helix retraction status on right ventricular lead extraction

A Large Single-Center Clinical Trial of Transvenous Lead Extraction

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

Four‐Stage Rocket technique: A novel strategy for lead extractions using laser sheaths from the femoral vein

Out with the old: Single center experience with transvenous extraction of leads older than 15 years

A Rare Phenomenon among 3847 Lead Extraction Procedures

Transvenous extraction of conduction system and lumenless pacing leads

Implantable Defibrillator Lead Extraction with Optimized Standard Extraction Techniques

Practical Approaches to Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures-Clinical Case Series

Preliminary experience in extraction of pacemaker leads with Evolution mechanical dilator sheath

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

Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker/Defibrillator Leads-A Single-Center Experience

Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position—Does It Matter?

High predicted durability for the novel small-diameter OmniaSecure defibrillation lead

Case Report: Extraction of a stylet-driven lead for left bundle branch area pacing >2 years after implantation

VDD Lead Extraction—Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management