Procedural outcomes and long-term survival associated with lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads.

BACKGROUND:The decision to abandon or extract superfluous sterile leads is controversial. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare procedural outcomes and long-term survival of patients with and those without abandoned leads undergoing lead extraction (LE). METHODS:Retrospective review of all patients who had undergone transvenous LE at our institution from January 2007 to May 2016 was performed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of abandoned leads. RESULTS:Among 774 patients who had undergone LE procedures, 38 (4.9%) had abandoned leads (group 1). Dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was longer in group 1 vs group 2 (7.6 ± 4.9 years vs 5.6 ± 4.4 years; P = .017), as was infection as an indication for LE (76% vs 33%; P <.001). A bailout femoral approach was more commonly required in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs 6%; P = .007). Complete procedural success rates were similar (92.1% in group 1 vs 95.0% in group 2; P = .439), but there was a trend toward lower clinical success in group 1 (92.1% vs 97.4%; P = .088), primarily due to failure to remove all hardware in the setting of infection. Major procedural complication rates were similar (2.6% in group 1 vs 1.2% in group 2; P = .397), as was long-term survival (mean follow-up 2.3 ± 2.2 years). CONCLUSION:Abandoned leads at the time of LE were associated with increased procedural complexity, including a higher rate of bailout femoral extraction, and may be associated with lower clinical success. Among appropriately selected patients, consideration should be given to LE instead of abandonment.