Gestión y extracción de cables

1. Comparison of average peak push forces required to advance Laser Sheath at 40 Hz vs. 80 Hz Pulse Repetition Rate through simulated fibrosis material at an advancement rate of 1.0 mm/second. D015722, Data on file at Philips.
2. Comparison of ablation force vs. advancement rate of Laser sheath 40Hz vs. 80Hz by use of the data collected in D015786, Data on file at Philips.
3. Carillo RG, Tsang DC, Azarrafiy R, Boyle TA. Multi-Year Evaluation of Compliant. Endovascular Balloon in Treating Superior Vena Cava Tears During Transvenous Lead Extraction. EHRA late-breaking trial. 19 de marzo de 2018.
4. Document on file, D026197. In an animal model with SVC tears up to 3.5 cm, with 2 pacing leads and 1 ICD lead.
5. Kusumoto et al. 2017 HRS Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiovascular. Implantable Electronic Device Lead Management and Extraction. Heart Rhythm, 2017.
6. Sohail, M Rizwan, et al. Incidence, Treatment Intensity, and Incremental Annual Expenditures for Patients Experiencing a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: Evidence From a Large US Payer Database 1-Year Post Implantation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016; 9(8).
   
7. Maytin M, Jones SO, Epstein LM. Long-Term Mortality After Transvenous Lead Extraction. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012;5:252-257.
8. Sohail MR, Henrikson CA, Braid-Forbes M, Forbes K, Lerner DJ, Mortality and cost associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Arch Inern Med/Vol 171 (No. 20). 14 de noviembre de 2011
   
9. Pokorney et al. Outcomes Associated with Extraction versus Capping and Abandoning Pacing and De brillator Leads Circulation 2017 Oct 10;136(15):1387-1395. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027636. Epub 22 de agosto de 2017.
10. Sohail, M. et al. (2014). Laser lead extraction to facilitate cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade and revision in the presence of central venous obstruction. Europace, 16(1), 81-87.
11. Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Nakashima Y. The incidence and risk factors for venous obstruction after implantation of transvenous pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002;25:1605–1611.
12. Kutarski, A., Pietura, R., Młynarczyk, K., Małecka, B., & Głowniak, A. (2012). Pacemaker lead extraction and recapture of venous access: technical problems arising from extensive venous obstruction. Cardiology journal, 19(5), 513-517.
13. Mattei, E., Gentili, G., Censi, F., Triventi, M. and Calcagnini, G. (2015), Impact of capped and uncapped abandoned leads on the heating of an MR-conditional pacemaker implant. Magn Reson Med, 73: 390–400. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25106
14. Kalin R, Stanton MS. Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. PACE. April 2005;28(4):326-328.
15. Wazni, O et. al. Lead Extraction in the Contemporary Setting: The LExICon Study: A Multicenter Observational Retrospective Study of Consecutive Laser Lead Extractions, J Am Coll Cardiol, 55:579-586
16. de Cock CC, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with multiple (> or = 3) noninfected leads: a clinical and echocardiographic study. PACE, Vol 23, No 4, 2000, 423-6.

Información importante de seguridad de la envoltura de láser GlideLight

Indicaciones de uso

La envoltura de láser está diseñada para usar como complemento de las herramientas convencionales de extracción de cables para pacientes aptos para la extracción transvenosa de cables de marcapasos o desfibriladores implantados crónicamente y construidos con aislamiento exterior de silicona o poliuretano.

Contraindicaciones

El uso de la envoltura de láser está contraindicado:

• Cuando la toracotomía de emergencia con derivación cardiopulmonar no se puede realizar de inmediato en el caso de una complicación potencialmente mortal;
• Cuando la fluoroscopia no está disponible;
• Para los pacientes con los que no se puede utilizar un enfoque venoso superior;
• Cuando el operador no puede acceder al extremo proximal del cable de estimulación eléctrica;
• Cuando el cable no encajará en la luz interna de la envoltura de láser.