Abstract 11945: Indications and Outcomes Following Transvenous Extraction of ICD versus Pacemaker Leads

Introduction: Percutaneous transvenous lead extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasingly common. Although ICD leads are widely considered to be more difficult to extract than pacemaker leads, there are few direct comparisons. Methods/Results: Using a cohort of 368 consecutive patients undergoing lead extraction (dwell time >1 year) between 2005-2012, we compared baseline characteristics/outcomes in extractions involving pacing versus ICD leads. We defined major adverse events (MAE) as any events/complications that required procedural intervention, transfusion, or that resulted in death or serious harm during index hospitalization. Median age was 60.6 yrs and 29.6% were women. There were 136 (37%) pacing lead extractions and 232 (63%) ICD lead extractions. Pacing leads had a longer dwell time (6.14 yrs [IQR 1.2-10.9 ] versus 4.4 yrs [IQR 1.1-6.4], p<0.001) and higher median LVEF (55% [IQR 35-55] vs. 30% [IQR 20-40], p<0.001) compared with ICD lead patients. Indications for pacing and ICD lead extractions included sepsis/endocarditis (21.3% vs. 24.6%, p=0.48), pocket infection (40.4% vs. 34.9%, p=0.29), and lead failure (15.4% vs. 38.8%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between pacing and ICD lead extractions in median fluoroscopy time (5.5 vs. 8.5 minutes, p=0.86) or femoral bailout rate (4.4% vs. 5.2%, p=0.73). There were similar rates of all-cause MAE during index hospitalization (5.1% vs. 5.6%), death (2.2% vs 3.2%) and clinical success (97.0% vs. 97.0%, p=0.55) in pacemaker and ICD extractions, respectively. Conclusions: ICD leads are more commonly extracted relative to pacemaker leads, and this difference is driven by larger numbers of lead failure within ICD leads. Despite much longer dwell times, major adverse events were similar in pacing lead cases compared with ICD extractions.