Background— Left atrioesophageal fistula is a rare but devastating complication that may occur after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. We used capsule endoscopy to assess esophageal injury after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a population randomized to undergo general anesthesia or conscious sedation.

Methods and Results— Fifty patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation for paroxysmal symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs were enrolled and randomized, including those undergoing the procedure under general anesthesia (25 patients, group 1) and those receiving conscious sedation with fentanyl or midazolam (25 patients, group 2). All patients underwent esophageal temperature monitoring during the procedure. The day after ablation, all patients had capsule endoscopy to assess the presence of endoluminal tissue damage of the esophagus. We observed esophageal tissue damage in 12 (48%) patients of group 1 and 1 esophageal tissue damage in a single patient (4%) of group 2 ( P <0.001). The maximal esophageal temperature was significantly higher in patients undergoing general anesthesia (group 1) versus patients undergoing conscious sedation (group 2) (40.6±1°C versus 39.6±0.8°C; P < 0.003). The time to peak temperature was 9±7 seconds in group 1 and 21±9 seconds in group 2, and this difference was statistically significant ( P <0.001). No complication occurred during or after the administration of the pill cam or during the procedures. All esophageal lesions normalized at the 2-month repeat endoscopic examination.

Conclusion— The use of general anesthesia increases the risk of esophageal damage detected by capsule endoscopy.

Received August 15, 2008; accepted February 11, 2009. 

# CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE {#article-title-2}

Esophageal capsule endoscopy after radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: documented higher risk of luminal esophageal damage with general anesthesia as compared with conscious sedation.

### Introduction

The European Heart Rhythm Association charged the present writing committee with the task of producing a consensus document on training and accreditation for transvenous extraction of chronically implanted pacing and defibrillator leads.1,2 The core curriculum for the European Heart Rhythm Specialist includes implantation of heart rhythm devices but does not specifically mandate learning and accreditation for extraction techniques.3 The lack of such recommendations is related to the limited number of extractions available for training purposes and attaining competency. The present document focuses on the rising burden and the increasing complexity of techniques of lead extraction with an emphasis on the critical issues of training, accreditation, and documentation of results. There is also an educational component felt necessary to include by the Task Force in view of the specialized and emerging nature of this field. Where appropriate, a European perspective is presented and paediatric aspects are treated separately. The aim is to complement two recently published documents, one from the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)4 on facilities, training, indications, and management of transvenous lead extraction and the other from the American Heart Association on device-related infections.5 The indications for lead extraction have not changed since these publications and are therefore not covered in this present document.

### Need for lead extraction/removal—a European perspective

Due to improving recognition of clinical need and wider indications, the implant rate of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) continues to rise in most countries.6,7 The number of leads per patient is increasing with cardiac resynchronisation therapy–pacemaker/defibrillator, upgrades and a higher proportion of dual vs. single-chamber devices. As life expectancy has risen, so have the number of generator and lead changes despite advances in technology. Product advisories are inevitable despite overall improvements in reliability and have led to surges in extraction.8–10

Currently, infection accounts …

Pathways for training and accreditation for transvenous lead extraction: a European Heart Rhythm Association position paper

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years’ experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Background Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

Aim Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

Methods Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined ‘experience studies’. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

Results When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

Conclusions In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

/pdf/safety-of-transvenous-lead-extraction-according-to-centre-3ycd83wass.pdf

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently several extraction tools are available in order to allow safe and successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of pacemaker and ICD leads; however, no directives exist to guide physicians in their choice of extraction tools and approaches. To aim of the current review is to provide an overview of the success and complication rates of different extraction methods and tools available. A comprehensive search of all published literature was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Central. Included papers were original articles describing a specific method of TLE and the corresponding success rates of at least 50 patients. Fifty-three studies were included; the majority (56%) utilized 2 (1-4) different venous extraction approaches (subclavian and femoral), the median number of extraction tools used was 3 (1-6). A stepwise approach was utilized in the majority of the studies, starting with simple traction which resulted in successful TLE in 7-85% of the leads. When applicable the procedure was continued with non-powered tools resulting in a successful extraction of 34-87% leads. Subsequently, powered tools were applied whereby success rates further increased to 74-100%. The final step in TLE was usually utilized by femoral snare leading to an overall TLE success rate of 96-100%. The median procedure-related mortality and major complication described were, respectively, 0% (0-3%) and 1% (0-7%) per patient. In conclusion, a stepwise extraction approach can result in a clinical successful TLE in up to 100% of the leads with a relatively low risk of procedure-related mortality and complications.

/pdf/how-adequate-are-the-current-methods-of-lead-extraction-a-31wkcfqnfo.pdf

How adequate are the current methods of lead extraction? A review of the efficiency and safety of transvenous lead extraction methods

Background— Some operators routinely extract chronically implanted transvenous leads from a femoral, whereas others prefer a superior approach. This prospective study compared the safety and effectiveness of laser sheaths versus femoral snare extractions.

Methods and Results— The single-center study comprised 101 patients referred for unequivocal indications to extract ≥1 transvenous lead(s). Patients were >4 years of age and were randomly assigned to extractions with a laser sheath (group 1: n=50) versus a snare via femoral approach (group 2: n=51). The multicenter study comprised 358 patients who underwent extraction of old transvenous leads using laser sheaths (n=218, group 3) in 3 centers and from a femoral approach (n=138, group 4) in 3 other centers. In the single-center study, the success and complications rates were similar in groups 1 and 2. No patient died of a periprocedural complication. The procedural duration (51±22 versus 86±51 minutes) and duration of total fluoroscopic exposure (7±7 versus 21±17 minutes) were significantly shorter (each P <0.01) in group I than in group 2. In the multicenter study, we observed 2 procedure-associated deaths in group 3 versus 1 in group 4. Major procedural complications were observed in 3% of patients in group 3, versus 3% in group 4 ( P =NS). The rates of complete, partial, and unsuccessful extractions were similar in groups 3 and 4.

Conclusions— Old transvenous leads were extracted with similar success and complication rates by the femoral and laser approaches. However, the femoral approach was associated with longer procedures and a longer duration of fluoroscopic exposure.

Emilie Marcant Fossaert

Papers

Extraction of old pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator leads by laser sheath versus femoral approach.