Comparison between laser sheaths, femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths for lead extraction

Introduction Efficiency and safety are important features in the selection of lead extraction tools. We report our experience with different endovascular techniques to extract individual pacing and defibrillator leads. Methods This is a single-centre study of consecutive lead extraction procedures from 1997 until 2019. A total of 1725 leads were extracted in 775 patients. Direct traction sufficed for 588 leads, and 22 leads were primarily removed by surgery. The endovascular techniques used in the remainder were a laser sheath (190 leads), the femoral approach (717 leads) and rotating mechanical sheaths (208 leads). Results The three approaches were comparably effective in completely removing the leads (p = 0.088). However, there were more major complications with the laser sheath than with the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths (8.4%, 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively). Therefore, the procedural result—extraction without major complications—was significantly better with both the femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths than with the laser sheath (p < 0.001). This result was confirmed after propensity score matching to compensate for differences between lead cohorts (p = 0.007). Cross-over to another endovascular tool was necessary in 7.9%, 7.1% and 8.2% of laser, femoral and rotating mechanical attempts, respectively. Conclusion All three endovascular lead extraction techniques showed comparable efficacy. However, there were significantly more major complications using the laser sheath compared to the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths, leading us to abandon the laser technique. Importantly, no single endovascular technique sufficed to successfully extract all leads.

Retrograde Approach for Antegrade Inner Branches in a Precannulated Off-the-Shelf Multibranch Device

Purpose: The purpose of this technical note was to describe the application of the combination of precannulated branches and a femoral approach for bridging stent graft deployment in branched endovascular aneurysm repair. Technique: The technique is shown in a 65-year-old woman treated for thoracoabdominal aneurysm type I with endovascular repair using a multibranched device. The stent graft is an off-the-shelf device with 4 precannulated inner branches. Access to the precannulated branches is gained using a steerable sheath from retrograde femoral access instead of using access via the upper extremities. For this purpose, a 0.018ʺ wire introduced to the precannulated tube is snared into the steerable sheath. Next, the steerable sheath is guided into a stable position inside the branch. With this technique, the implantation of this off-the-shelf multibranch device could be completed safe and quickly with a full femoral approach avoiding upper extremity access. Conclusion: The combination of a precannulated multibranch stent graft with a full femoral approach for target vessel revascularisation is a feasible and quick method for complex endovascular repair.

Access-Site Complications of the Transfemoral Approach

The radial access route has significantly lower complications compared to the femoral access route. Often users have become used to the femoral approach and its attendant complications but it is worth reviewing that despite its minimally invasive nature as opposed to open craniotomy, endovascular transfemoral access is certainly not without risk. These risks include life threatening retroperiotenal hematoma formation and local hematoma formation as well as limb threatening occlusion of the femoral artery, which is an end artery thus must be urgently revascularlized in the event of compromise. The complications of femoral access are reviewed as well as strategies for management.

Aneurysm Treatment

The transradial approach offers safer access than the transfemoral approach based on the cardiac literature. The dual-antiplatelet requirements of many interventions and the high prevalence of patients on anticoagulation have made the transradial approach the access of choice for elective interventions. For ruptured cases, the benefit provides quicker extubation to reduce risk of pneumonia. All treatment modalities up to 6F triaxial systems can be used for embolization as one would from the femoral approach. All current neurointerventional therapies can be performed from a transradial approach. One needs to realize that, with new technologies, transradial neurointervention will become simpler, more efficient, and reliable.

Incidence and Predictors of Post-catheterisation Femoral Artery Access Vascular Complication in North Indian Population

Introduction: Vascular access-site complications following percutaneous interventions done using femoral approach, are an important cause of mortality, morbidity, prolonged stay and greater cost burden. Aim: To study the incidence and the factors which predict femoral artery access vascular complication after catheterisation in North Indian population. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective longitudinal observational study conducted at Department of Cardiology SMS Medical College at Jaipur, Rajasthan ,India between April 2016 to November 2017. All patients (n=11200) who underwent catheterisation from the femoral approach from April 2016 till November 2017 in the study institute were included. Duplex ultrasound was performed in cases with clinical suspicion of vascular complications. Clinical data and procedural variables were compared with a control group of 100 randomly selected patients. Univariate analysis and a logistic regression model for multivariate analysis for predicting independent variable was performed. Results: Femoral artery access vascular complication incidence rate was 2.05% (230). Complications rate was higher for interventional procedures (3.6%) than diagnostic procedures (1.25%). The most common vascular complication was haematoma which was seen in 1.29% (145) patients, other complication were femoral artery venous fistula seen in 0.37% (42) patients, pseudo-aneurysm in 0.41% (46) patients, acute limb ischemia in 0.1% (12) and infection in 0.09% (11) patients. It was found that advanced age (>60 years), female gender, obesity and hypertension were predictors of complication. Patients who received thrombolytic agent or low molecular weight heparin prior to procedure, use of large sheath size (7F v/s 6F) and multiple puncture to achieve femoral artery access were also independent predictors of vascular complication. Diabetes mellitus and duration of manual compression had no impact on vascular complication. Conclusion: Femoral artery access vascular complication is not uncommon following diagnostic or interventional cardiac catheterisation. The strongest predictors of vascular complication were advanced age (>60 year), female gender, overweight & obesity, hypertension, use of thrombolytic agent or anticoagulant prior to procedure, large size sheath 7F, and multiple puncture. Use of smaller sheaths, improved access techniques, safer antithrombotic therapy and use of vascular closure devices may be helpful for prevention of these vascular complications.

Comparison of efficacy of different endovascular lead extraction techniques

Background Reports on lead extraction often concern a single technique, rendering direct comparison between techniques difficult. Purpose We compared efficacy and complications of consecutively used endovascular extraction techniques in a single centre. Methods Single centre observational study of consecutive lead extractions from 1997 to 2019. The preferential technique used over time was at first a laser sheath (LS), subsequently a femoral approach (FA) if feasible, and finally rotational mechanical sheaths (RMT). The FA remained the preferential initial technique for atrial and coronary sinus leads during the latter period. Extraction results are reported per lead for the initial technique before any alternative approach was initiated. Results A total of 1725 leads (including 222 ICD) leads were extracted in 775 patients. Primary endovascular extraction was attempted in 1703 leads (median implant time 6.0 yrs. [IQR 2.7–10.2]) with the remainder being surgically removed. Traction sufficed to remove 588 leads (median implant time 2.4 yrs. [IQR 1.2 - 4.7]). The table shows the radiological and procedural success of the initially used technique per lead. Including use as backup technique there were 7.4%, 0.5% and 1.2% major complications with respectively LS, FA, and RMT. Including backup approaches, clinical success (lead completely removed or only lead fragment &lt;4cm left behind without mayor complication) for endovascular extraction of the 1703 leads was 94.8%. Conclusion The laser sheath has an inferior procedural outcome compared to rotational mechanical sheaths or a femoral approach which is largely the results of a higher complication rate. The femoral approach and mechanical rotational sheaths are seemingly equally effective, but the femoral approach is not suitable for many ICD leads and technically more demanding for ventricular leads. In current practice, the combination of a femoral approach and rotational mechanical sheaths yields optimal results. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None