Comparison Between TightRailTM Rotating Dilator Sheath and GlideLightTM Laser Sheath For Transvenous Lead Extraction.

BACKGROUND There are limited data on the comparative analyses of TightRailTM rotating dilator sheath (Philips) and laser sheath for lead extraction. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TightRailTM sheath as a primary or secondary tool for TLE. METHODS Retrospective cohort analysis of 202 consecutive patients who underwent TLE using either TightRailTM sheath and/or GlideLightTM laser sheath (Philips) in our hospital. The study population was divided into three groups: Group A underwent TLE with laser sheath only (N = 157), Group B with TightRailTM sheath only (N = 22), and Group C with both sheaths (N = 23). RESULTS During this period, 375 leads in 202 patients were extracted, including 297 leads extracted by laser sheath alone, 45 leads by TightRailTM sheath alone, and 33 by both TightRailTM sheath and laser sheaths. The most common indications included device infection (44.6%) and lead-related complications (44.1%). The median age of leads was 8.9 years. TightRailTM sheath (Group B) achieved similar efficacy as a primary extraction tool compared with laser sheath (Group A), with complete procedure success rate of 93.3% (vs. 96.6%, P = 0.263) and clinical success rate of 100.0% (vs. 98.1%, P = 0.513). Among 32 leads in which TightrailTM was used after laser had failed (Group C), the complete procedure success rate was 75.8%. No significant difference in procedural adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION Our single-center experience confirms that the TightRailTM system is an effective first-line and second-line method for TLE. Further investigation is required to guide the selection of mechanical and laser sheaths in lead extraction cases. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.