Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Increased risk of lead transection and procedural complexity during extraction of thin-diameter, single filar pacemaker leads
- retrospective analysis
Authors' conclusion
Ingevity leads were over 6 times more likely to break during extraction than non-Ingevity leads, despite a shorter dwell time. This translated into a more complex TLE procedure with higher requirement for bailout femoral extraction.
Study context
- Population
- Pacemaker lead extraction procedures performed from June 2022 to October 2025Ingevity procedures 50 · non-Ingevity procedures 378
- Participants
- 428 pacemaker lead extraction procedures
- Exposure
- Ingevity leads vs non-Ingevity leads
- Ingevityn = 50
- non-Ingevityn = 378reference
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Lead transection
P < 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Lead dwell time · shorter dwell time with Ingevity
P = 0.017
Bailout femoral extraction
P = 0.002
| Outcome | odds ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead break (multivariate analysis) | 6.34 (2.6–15.5) | P < 0.001 | |
| 0.050.21520Odds ratio (log scale) |
- Lead break (multivariate analysis): controlling for lead dwell time and the number of leads targeted for extraction
Patient age
- mean patient age
- 68.4 ± 13.4 years
Original publication
Increased risk of lead transection and procedural complexity during extraction of thin-diameter, single filar pacemaker leads. Heart Rhythm. Published 23 April 2026. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2026.03.1879
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it