Of the 400,000-500,000 permanent pacemaker leads implanted worldwide each year, around 10% may eventually fail or become infected, becoming potential candidates for removal. Intravascular techniques for removing problematic or infected leads evolved over a 5-year period (1989-1993). This article analyzes results from January 1994 through April 1996, a period during which techniques were fairly stable. Extraction of 3,540 leads from 2,338 patients was attempted at 226 centers. Indications were: infection (27%), nonfunctional or incompatible leads (25%), Accufix or Encore leads (46%), or other causes (2%). Patients were 64+/-17 years of age (range 5-96); 59% were men, 41% women. Leads were implanted 47+/-41 months (maximum 26 years), in the atrium (53%), ventricle (46%), or SVC (1%). Extraction was attempted via the implant vein using locking stylets and dilator sheaths, and/or transfemorally using snares, retrieval baskets, and sheaths. Complete removal was achieved for 93% of leads, partial for 5%, and 2% were not removed. Risk of incomplete or failed extraction increased with implant duration (P<0.0001), less experienced physicians (P<0.0001), ventricular leads (P<0.005), noninfected patients (P<0.0005), and younger patients (P<0.0001). Major complications were reported for 1.4% of patients (<1% at centers with >300 cases), minor for 1.7%. Risk of complications increased with number of leads removed (P<0.005) and with less experienced physicians (P<0.005); risk of major complications was higher for women (P<0.01). Given physician experience, appropriate precautions, and appropriate patient selection, contemporary lead removal techniques allow success with low complication rates.

No abstract

Background-In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). inappropriate shocks have been reported with exposure to electronic article surveillance systems. The risk to patients with ICDs of walking through or lingering near surveillance systems requires further investigation. Methods and Results-We evaluated the response in ICD function in 170 subjects during a 10-to 15-second midgate walk-through of and during extreme (2 minutes within 6 in of the gate) exposure to 3 common article surveillance systems. Complete testing was done in 169 subjects. During a 10-to 15-second (very slow) walk-through of the 3 surveillance systems, no interactions were observed that would negatively affect ICD function. During extreme exposure (169 subjects) and during extreme exposure and pacing via the ICD (126 subjects), interactions between the ICD and the article surveillance systems were observed in 19 subjects. In 7 subjects, this interaction was clinically relevant and would have likely (3 subjects) and possibly (4 subjects) resulted in ICD shocks. In 12 subjects, the interaction was minor. Conclusions-It is safe for a patient with an ICD to walk through electronic article surveillance systems. Lingering in a surveillance system may result in an inappropriate ICD shock. (Circulation. 1999;100:387-392.)