Starfix lead extraction: Clinical experience and technical issues

AbstractTransvenous lead extraction (TLE) of the Starfix coronary sinus (CS) active-fixation lead may be challenging, due to undeployment of fixation lobes and venous occlusion. We report our experience in Starfix TLE, in comparison with previous data.A 78-year-old male, implanted in 2009 with Starfix lead, was referred to our institution for TLE, due to infective endocarditis with lead-associated vegetations. The tip of Starfix lead was located in distant, anterior position, in the great cardiac vein, close to patent left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending artery anastomosis, and first-choice surgical removal had a prohibitive operative risk.Conventional dilatation beyond CS ostium, as well as the use of a standard delivery catheter, was ineffective. An off-label modification of the delivery, by cutting the distal soft tip, was successful. However, the tip of the lead fragmented and was trapped in the innominate vein. Then a gooseneck snare grasped the fragment, allowing complete retrieval.TLE of Starfix leads may be particularly challenging, especially when its tip is located in a distant anterior location. In these cases, important help may be obtained by dilatation within the CS, by means of conventional or modified delivery catheters. Only experienced operators, sometimes with non-conventional techniques, should perform TLE of Starfix leads.<Learning objective: TLE of Starfix leads may be challenging, particularly when the tip is located in a distant anterior position. Dilatation with conventional tools may be precluded. In these cases modifications of the delivery catheters may be useful. Surgery should be avoided as first-choice procedure; only experienced operators, sometimes with non-conventional techniques, should perform TLE of Starfix leads.

The effects of gender on electrical therapies for the heart: procedural considerations, results and complications: A report from the XII Congress of the Italian Association on Arrhythmology and Cardiostimulation (AIAC)

Use of cardiac implantable devices and catheter ablation is steadily increasing in Western countries following the positive results of clinical trials. Despite the advances in scientific knowledge, tools development, and techniques improvement we still have some grey area in the field of electrical therapies for the heart. In particular, several reports highlighted differences both in medical behaviour and procedural outcomes between female and male candidates. Women are referred later for catheter ablation of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation, leading to suboptimal results. On the opposite females present greater response to cardiac resynchronization, while the benefit of implantable defibrillator in primary prevention seems to be less pronounced. Differences on aetiology, clinical profile, and development of myocardial scarring are the more plausible causes. This review will discuss all these aspects together with gender-related differences in terms of acute/late complications. We will also provide useful hints on plausible mechanisms and practical procedural aspects

Transvenous lead extraction procedures in women based on ESC-EHRA EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry: is female sex a predictor of complications

AIMS Female sex is considered an independent risk factor of transvenous leads extraction (TLE) procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TLE in women compared with men. METHODS AND RESULTS A post hoc analysis of risk factors and effectiveness of TLE in women and men included in the ESC-EHRA EORP ELECTRa registry was conducted. The rate of major complications was 1.96% in women vs. 0.71% in men; P = 0.0025. The number of leads was higher in men (mean 1.89 vs. 1.71; P < 0.0001) with higher number of abandoned leads in women (46.04% vs. 34.82%; P < 0.0001). Risk factors of TLE differed between the sexes, of which the major were: signs and symptoms of venous occlusion [odds ratio (OR) 3.730, confidence interval (CI) 1.401-9.934; P = 0.0084], cumulative leads dwell time (OR 1.044, CI 1.024-1.065; P < 0.001), number of generator replacements (OR 1.029, CI 1.005-1.054; P = 0.0184) in females and the number of leads (OR 6.053, CI 2.422-15.129; P = 0.0001), use of powered sheaths (OR 2.742, CI 1.404-5.355; P = 0.0031), and white blood cell count (OR 1.138, CI 1.069-1.212; P < 0.001) in males. Individual radiological and clinical success of TLE was 96.29% and 98.14% in women compared with 98.03% and 99.21% in men (P = 0.0046 and 0.0098). CONCLUSION The efficacy of TLE was lower in females than males, with a higher rate of periprocedural major complications. The reasons for this difference are probably related to disparities in risk factors in women, including more pronounced leads adherence to the walls of the veins and myocardium. Lead management may be key to the effectiveness of TLE in females

Transvenous lead extraction procedures in women based on ESC-EHRA EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry: is female sex a predictor of complications?

Female sex is considered an independent risk factor of transvenous leads extraction (TLE) procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TLE in women compared with men.A post hoc analysis of risk factors and effectiveness of TLE in women and men included in the ESC-EHRA EORP ELECTRa registry was conducted. The rate of major complications was 1.96% in women vs. 0.71% in men; P = 0.0025. The number of leads was higher in men (mean 1.89 vs. 1.71; P < 0.0001) with higher number of abandoned leads in women (46.04% vs. 34.82%; P < 0.0001). Risk factors of TLE differed between the sexes, of which the major were: signs and symptoms of venous occlusion [odds ratio (OR) 3.730, confidence interval (CI) 1.401-9.934; P = 0.0084], cumulative leads dwell time (OR 1.044, CI 1.024-1.065; P < 0.001), number of generator replacements (OR 1.029, CI 1.005-1.054; P = 0.0184) in females and the number of leads (OR 6.053, CI 2.422-15.129; P = 0.0001), use of powered sheaths (OR 2.742, CI 1.404-5.355; P = 0.0031), and white blood cell count (OR 1.138, CI 1.069-1.212; P < 0.001) in males. Individual radiological and clinical success of TLE was 96.29% and 98.14% in women compared with 98.03% and 99.21% in men (P = 0.0046 and 0.0098).The efficacy of TLE was lower in females than males, with a higher rate of periprocedural major complications. The reasons for this difference are probably related to disparities in risk factors in women, including more pronounced leads adherence to the walls of the veins and myocardium. Lead management may be key to the effectiveness of TLE in females