{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04057971014492753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.034782608695652174, 'mean_word_length': 5.013937282229965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of standard and modified transvenous techniques for complex pacemaker lead extractions in the context of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections: a 10-year experience.

AIMS
Complete lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) for device-related infections remains a complex procedure for chronically implantated leads. We present data from a single-centre registry of consecutive patients with extractions over 10 years.


METHOD AND RESULTS
Patients were identified from the centre's electronic database with CIED-related infections who underwent lead extraction using either the standard technique and equipment or a modified innovative transvenous lead technique extraction using an ablation catheter. Of 151 patients with CIED-related infections, not responding to simple manual traction to effect lead extraction, average age 65 ± 8 years (range 45-82), 64% being male, 75 underwent standard (S) extraction, and 76 underwent modified (M) extraction. Procedural, lead extraction, and fluoroscopy exposure times with S and M methods, respectively, were 65 ± 14 vs. 52 ± 6 min (P < 0.01), 56 ± 12 vs. 36 ± 8 min (P < 0.001), and 48 ± 12 vs. 31 ± 7 min (P < 0.001). Retrieval rates were numerically lower with the standard technique at 92 vs. 96% but did not achieve significance, with respective complication rates of 6.7 and 5.3%.


CONCLUSION
In our single-centre study, a modified extraction technique to retrieve leads for infections of CIEDs using a steerable ablation catheter has improved procedural parameters over the standard technique, without compromising clinical lead extraction success rates. This may be a promising approach for a future, prospective trial.