Creation of the sole regional laser lead extraction program serving Atlantic Canada: initial experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing need for laser lead extraction has grown in parallel with the increase of implantation of pacing and defibrillating devices. We reviewed the initial experience of a regional laser-assisted lead extraction program serving Atlantic Canada. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the cases of all consecutive patients who underwent laser lead extraction at the Maritime Heart Centre in Halifax, NS, between 2006 and 2015. We conducted univariate and Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses. RESULTS: During the 9-year study period, 108 consecutive patients underwent laser lead extractions (218 leads extracted). The most common indication for extraction was infection (84.3%). Most patients were older than 60 years (73.1%) and had leads chronically implanted; the explanted leads were an average of 7.5 ± 6.8 years old. Procedural and clinical success (resolution of preoperative symptoms) rates and mortality were 96.8%, 97.2%, and 0.9%, respectively. Sternotomy procedures were performed in 3 instances: once for vascular repair due to perforation and twice to ensure that all infected lead material was removed. No minor complications required surgical intervention. Survival after discharge was 98.4% at 30 days and 94% at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Atlantic Canada's sole surgical extraction centre achieved high extraction success with a low complication rate. Lead extraction in an operative setting provides for immediate surgical intervention and is essential for the survival of patients with complicated cases. Surgeons must weigh the risks versus benefits in patients older than 60 years who have chronically implanted leads (> 1 yr) and infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".