Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Safety and effectiveness of transvenous extraction for ePTFE-coated leads: A retrospective comparative study
- single-center, retrospective study
- matched control cohort sensitivity analysis (Mahalanobis distance nearest-neighbor matching)
+1 more
- matched control cohort sensitivity analysis (Mahalanobis distance nearest-neighbor matching)
Authors' conclusion
The safety and efficacy of extraction of Reliance ICD leads were similar to the extraction of non-Reliance ICD leads. Reliance procedure times were shorter, and there was less rotational cutting tool use.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing extraction of Reliance and non-Reliance implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leadsReliance patients (88 leads) 87 · non-Reliance patients (controls, 257 leads) 220
- Exposure
- extraction of Reliance and non-Reliance implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads
- Reliancen = 87 patients (88 leads)
- non-Reliance (controls)n = 220 patients (257 leads)
- Outcome
- Extraction failure rate
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Mean, years
| Outcome | Reliance | non-Reliance (controls) | matched controls | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 58.5 (SD 14.4) | 60.1 (SD 14.5) | Not reported in the abstract | matched controls: not reported in the abstract |
- Age: P = .33
Body mass index, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous sternotomy, estimated glomerular filtration rate
- Similar in both groups
- P > 0.05 for all
Procedural characteristics (adjusted)
- Reliance procedures required less extraction time, less rotational cutting tool use, and fewer clicks with similar use and amount of laser
- After adjustment
Predictors of abnormal impedance among Reliance leads
- High previous impedance, dual-coil configuration, and low body mass index were predictors of abnormal impedance
Safety
Major adverse event rate (main safety endpoint)
- Major adverse event rate (main safety endpoint): Reliance vs control P = .72
- Major adverse event rate (main safety endpoint): Reliance vs matched controls P = .62
Major adverse event rate (main safety endpoint)
- No difference in the major adverse event rate
Original publication
Safety and effectiveness of transvenous extraction for ePTFE-coated leads: A retrospective comparative study. Heart Rhythm. Published 30 May 2026. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2026.05.043
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it