Should lead explantation be the practice standard when a lead needs to be replaced?

PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Volumn 23, Issue 4 I, 2000, Pages 421-422

  Levine, Paul A ^a,b  

^a ST JUDE MEDICAL   (United States)

^b LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID;

ARTIFICIAL HEART PACEMAKER; EDITORIAL; EXPLANT; HUMAN; INFECTION; MORBIDITY; THROMBOEMBOLISM;

EID: 0034049182     PISSN: 01478389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2000.tb00820.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Kawanishi DT, Brinker JA, Reeves RC, et al. Overview of mortality and injury related to the Telectronics Accufix atrial permanent pacemaker lead at 4 years after lead recall, (abstract) PACE 1999; 22:780.
2. Lloyd MA, Hyberger LK, Hayes DL. Indications for dual chamber pacemaker lead revision at the Mayo Clinic over two decades. (abstract) PACE 1998; 21:914.
3. Furman S, Behrens M, Andrews C, et al. Retained pacemaker leads. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987; 94:770-772.
4. Rettig G, Boenecke P, Sen S, et al. Complications with retained transvenous pacemaker electrodes. Am Heart J 1979; 98:587-594.
5. Figa FH, McCrindle BW, Bigras JL, et al. Risk factors for venous obstruction in children with transvenous pacing lead. PACE 1997; 20:1902-1909.
6. de Cock CC, Vinkers M, van Campen LCMC, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with multiple leads (≥ 3) noninfected transvenous leads: A clinical and echocardiographic study, PACE 2000; 23:423-426.