Abstract 11301: Comparing All-Cause to Procedure-Related Mortality in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Lead Removals: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Infection is a serious complication in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Infection of the generator pocket, systemic bacteremia and lead-related or suspected endocarditis are absolute indications for device removal. While previous studies have reported infection as a major risk factor for mortality, it is unclear what proportion is related to complications of infection or the CIED lead removal procedure itself. Objective: We have conducted a systematic review looking at all-cause in-hospital mortality, intraprocedural, and procedure-related mortality in CIED lead removals and have done a subanalysis specifically exploring removals for infectious indications. Methods: A search was performed of studies published between January 1, 2000-August 29, 2019 indexed on Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were: (a) transvenous removal of ICD, pacemaker or CRT device leads, (b) Age≥18, (c) n>100 patients. Exclusion criteria were: (a) generator only procedures, (b) planned surgical extractions, (c) data prior to 2000. From these studies, we further selected papers containing mortality data in which all subjects had infectious indications for removal, or papers with infectious only cohorts of n>100 with mortality data. Outcomes: All-cause mortality during index hospitalization, intraprocedural mortality, procedure related mortality. Results: 2307 abstracts were screened after de-duplication resulting in 164 papers for full text review. Of these 164, 8 papers were selected for analysis based on our inclusion criteria. 7 reported periprocedural/mortality during index hospitalization which ranged from 1.47-7.20%; median 4.98% (IQR 2.74-5.69%). 4 studies reported intraprocedural mortality which ranged from 0-0.69%; median 0.10% (IQR 0.00-0.32%). and 6 reported procedure related death which ranged from 0-0.72%; median 0.50% (IQR 0.10-0.67%). Conclusions: Mortality after CIED lead removal is high in patients presenting with infection, however intraprocedural mortality and death directly related to the removal procedure remains low.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".