AI Article Synopsis

  • Transvenous lead extraction is a complex procedure requiring specialized equipment and leads to significant hospitalization costs, with mean extraction costs averaging £9228, and overall costs (including device reimplantation) reaching £17,574.
  • The study analyzed 74 patients in a UK center over one year, finding that most procedures (93%) used general anesthesia and involved a median hospital stay of 3 days.
  • There is a notable discrepancy between actual costs and NHS reimbursements, which cover only a fraction of expenses, highlighting the need for extraction centers to evaluate their practices and reimplantation timing.

Article Abstract

Aims: Transvenous lead extraction is challenging, often requiring specialist equipment and prolonged hospital admission. A single tariff or itemized costs may be available for reimbursement. Due to limited data relating to the costs of transvenous extraction, it is unclear whether either form of reimbursement is adequate. We aim to describe accurately the total real-world costs of managing patients undergoing transvenous extraction at a single, large centre. We further aim to consider the additional costs of device reimplantation.

Methods And Results: At a single UK extraction centre, a retrospective, patient level service line analysis was undertaken, during a complete financial year. Seventy-four patients required transvenous extraction (47 infected and 27 non-infected; 156 leads). Sixty-nine procedures (93%) were performed under general anaesthesia, with a median time in theatre of 95 min [interquartile range (IQR) 71-120]. Specialist extraction tools were required for 130 leads (83%). The median hospitalization duration was 3 days (IQR 1-8). The mean cost of extraction was £9228 (±4099); infected £10 727 (±4178) and non-infected £6619 (±2269). With the additional costs of device reimplantation, the overall mean cost rose to £17 574 (±12 882); infected £22 615 (±13 343) and non-infected £8801 (±5007). At the time of this study, the UK NHS tariff was £2530 for elective and £4764 for non-elective extraction, covering barely half of the real costs.

Conclusion: We demonstrated a substantial difference between the real-world cost of extraction and the UK NHS tariff. Extracting centres should scrutinize their practice, including the timing of reimplantation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euy291DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transvenous extraction
12
extraction
10
real-world costs
8
costs transvenous
8
transvenous lead
8
lead extraction
8
additional costs
8
costs device
8
cost extraction
8
nhs tariff
8

Similar Publications

This case details the successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker following the extraction of transvenous leads in a 72-year-old female patient with a complex cardiovascular history. The patient had undergone a series of cardiac interventions, including a recent percutaneous tricuspid valve repair with a metal clip implant due to severe regurgitation. After presenting with an infection at the pacemaker site, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus hominis was identified, necessitating the removal of the entire pacing system.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is strongly recommended for CIED-related infections, and leadless pacemakers (LPs) are increasingly used for reimplantation. However, the optimal timing and safety of LP implantation after CIED removal for infection remains unclear.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess complication rates (all-cause mortality and reinfection) when LP implantation was performed simultaneously with or after CIED removal.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become an essential component of lead management strategies, but it carries the risk of severe complications, including damage to the tricuspid valve. Currently, there are no established predictors that can help prevent these complications.

Case Summary: An 84-year-old male with a dual-chamber pacemaker was admitted to the hospital due to a pocket fistula resulting from a local infection.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!