Back to Authors

Huang, Xinmiao

Mayo Clinic

Second Military Medical University

Citations 3

Portable Device Improves the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation After Ablation
Huang, Songqun , Liu, Chao , Qin, Aihong, Dong, Shaohua, Xing, Wenhui , Guo, Zhifu , Huang, Xinmiao, Cha, Yong‐Mei , Cao, Jiang, Cha, Yongmei, Zhao, Teng , Yuan, Binhang

International Heart Journal | July 16, 2021 | Volume: 62 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 786-791

10.1536/ihj.21-067 Get It

Outcomes of repeated transvenous lead extraction
Fu, Hai‐Xia , Ho, Gordon , Yang, Mei , Huang, Xinmiao, Fender, Erin A. , Mulpuru, Siva K. , Asirvatham, Roshini, Friedman, Paul A. , Birgersdotter‐Green, Ulrika , Cha, Yong‐Mei , Fu, Haixia, Mulpuru, Siva, Friedman, Paul A , Cha, Yong-Mei , Pretorius, Victor

Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology | July 30, 2018 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1321-1328

10.1111/pace.13464 Get It

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.
Outcomes and Complications of Lead Removal: Can We Establish a Risk Stratification Schema for a Collaborative and Effective Approach?
Fu, Hai‐Xia , Huang, Xinmiao, Li, Zhong , Osborn, Michael J., Asirvatham, Samuel J. , Espinosa, Raúl E. , Brady, Peter A. , Lee, Hon-Chi , Greason, Kevin L. , Sohail, M. Rizwan , Acker, Nancy G., Hodge, David O. , Friedman, Paul A. , Cha, Yong‐Mei , Sohail, Rizwan M., Baddour, Larry M. , Asirvatham, Samuel J , Sohail, M Rizwan

Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology | August 21, 2015 | Volume: 38 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1439-1447

10.1111/pace.12736 Get It