The growing use and the expanding indications for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have been associated to an increase of device removal. The indications of CIEDs removal are infectious (55%) or noninfectious (45%) such as upgrading of devices, nonfunctional devices and thrombosis. Removal can be performed according to transvenous or surgical procedures. Transvenous lead removal (TLR) must be done by experimented cardiologists and respecting current consensus. TLR can be done with conventional techniques involving inserting locking stylets and telescoping sheaths around the pacing leads to separate them from the surrounding scar tissue. These conventional procedures have a success rate of ≈65%. TLR thanks to laser sheath has been validated and improved the success rate until \>95%. However, the TLR from chronically implanted CIEDs still carries a significant risk of procedural failure, morbidity, and mortality, related to tearing of the great vessels and cardiac structures, even when performed by experienced operators. Even if the transvenous extraction using laser sheath seems to be more effective, this strategy would be more expensive. Considering the availability of several strategies for TLR and the cost heterogeneity of procedures, a cost assessment in real life of these therapeutic strategies is essential for an optimal choice of therapeutic strategies.
The study will compare the strategies of percutaneous extraction to surgical extraction. * Mechanical percutaneous extraction is the conventional technique using locking stylets and telescoping sheaths around the pacing leads to separate them from the surrounding scar tissue. * Laser-assisted lead extraction is most often used in complex procedures and dissolves rather than tear the scar tissue. * Sternotomy is the surgical procedure used when leads cannot be removed by percutaneous extraction. It is rarely employed.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
45
Patients who have undergone an extraction of implantable pacemaker or defibrillator leads whatever the indication for the period march 2015-2017
Patients who have undergone an extraction of implantable pacemaker or defibrillator leads whatever the indication for the period march 2015-2017
CHU Clermont-Ferrand
Clermont-Ferrand, France
Direct medical cost
Overall cost of care according to the hospital perspective: drug treatment, medical device, catheterization lab occupancy, operating room occupancy, medical and nursing staff time, hospitalization
Time frame: at day 1
Investment cost for the hospital and damping
annual projections: medical device and supplies
Time frame: at day 1
Type of intervention
mechanical percutaneous extraction, laser percutaneous extraction, surgical extraction
Time frame: at day 1
Indication of the intervention
infectious, technical failure or other
Time frame: at day 1
Extracted leads characteristics
number, type, age, failure
Time frame: at day 1
Patient characteristics
age, sex, origin (general hospital, university hospital, other)
Time frame: at day 1
Number and type of complications
tamponade, vascular rupture, haemothorax, equipment breakage, death…
Time frame: at day 1
percutaneous extraction
number of surgical transformation (sternotomy)
Time frame: at day 1
Duration of hospitalization
pre and post-extraction
Time frame: at day 1
Duration of extraction procedure and fluoroscopy
for percutaneous extraction
Time frame: at day 1
quotation ranking of each patient for revenue valuation
quotation ranking of each patient for revenue valuation
Time frame: at day 1
Number of rehospitalization
duration, cause and service
Time frame: at day 1
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.