Lead damage after cardiac implantable device replacement procedure: Comparison between electrical plasma tool and electrocautery. (2nd March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ananwattanasuk, Teetouch; Jamé, Sina; Bogun, Frank M.; Chugh, Aman; Crawford, Thomas C.; Cunnane, Ryan; Ghanbari, Hamid; Latchamsetty, Rakesh; Lathkar‐Pradhan, Sangeeta; Oral, Hakan; Pelosi, Frank; Saeed, Mohammed; Jongnarangsin, Krit
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 32:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 1124
• Page End: 1128
• Publication Date: 2021-03-02
• Subjects: electrocautery -- generator replacement -- lead damage -- the PEAK PlasmaBlade; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14966
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Lead damage is a complication caused by lead manipulation or heating damage from conventional electrocautery (EC) after cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) replacement. Application of electrical plasma (PEAK PlasmaBlade) is a new technology that reportedly reduces this risk. Objectives: This study was designed to compare the effect of EC versus PEAK PlasmaBlade on lead parameters and complications after generator replacement procedures. Methods: We retrospectively studied 410 consecutive patients (840 leads) who underwent CIED replacement using EC (EC group) and 410 consecutive patients (824 leads) using PEAK PlasmaBlade (PlamaBlade group). Pacing lead impedance, incidence of lead damage, and complications were compared between both groups. Results: Lead impedance increased in 393 leads (46.8%) in the EC group versus 282 leads (34.2%) in the PlasmaBlade group ( p < .01) with average percent changes of 6.7% and 4.0% ( p < .01), respectively. Lead impedance decreased in 438 leads (52.1%) in the EC group versus 507 leads (61.5%) in the PlasmaBlade group ( p < .01) with average percent changes of −5.7% and −7.1% ( p < .01), respectively. Lead damage requiring lead revision occurred in five leads (0.6%) or after five procedures (1.2%) in the EC group compared to three leads (0.4%, p = .50) or after three procedures (0.7%, p = .48) in the PlasmaBlade group. There were no significant differences in the procedural‐related complications between the EC group (nine patients, 2.2%) and the PlasmaBlade group (five patients, 1.2%, p = .28). Conclusion: Conventional electrocautery can potentially damage lead insulations. However, this study shows that when used carefully electrocautery is as safe as the PEAK PlasmaBlade™.