Asirvatham, Roshini

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.

BackgroundAutomated external defibrillators can provide life‐saving therapies to treat ventricular fibrillation. We developed a prototype unit that can deliver a unique shock waveform produced by four independent capacitors that is delivered through two shock vectors, with the rationale of providing more robust shock pathways during emergent defibrillation. We describe the initial testing and feasibility of this unique defibrillation unit, features of which may enable downsizing of current defibrillator devices.MethodsWe tested our defibrillation unit in four large animal models (two canine and two swine) under general anesthesia. Experimental defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were obtained by delivery of a unique waveform shock pulse via a dual‐vector pathway with four defibrillation pads (placed across the chest). DFTs were measured and compared with those of a commercially available biphasic defibrillator (Zoll M series, Zoll Medical, Chelmsford, MA, USA) tested in two different vectors. Shocks were delivered after 10 seconds of stable ventricular fibrillation and the output characteristics and shock outcome recorded. Each defibrillation series used a step‐down to failure protocol to define the defibrillation threshold.ResultsA total of 96 shocks were delivered during ventricular fibrillation in four large animals. In comparison to the Zoll M series, which delivered a single‐vector, biphasic shock, the energy required for successful defibrillation using the unique dual‐vector biphasic waveform did not differ significantly (P = 0.65).ConclusionsOur early findings support the feasibility of a unique external defibrillation unit using a dual‐vector biphasic waveform approach. This warrants further study to leverage this unique concept and work toward a miniaturized, portable shock delivery system.