GlideLight

Laser sheath

Najít podobné výrobky

Safely and efficiently removing leads depends on tools that give you versatility and control. GlideLight laser sheath offers the unprecedented ability to customize the laser’s repetition rate throughout a procedure. At 80Hz, the GlideLight laser sheath requires up to 55% less advancement force,¹ and advance up to 62% more efficiently through tough binding sites than SLS II.²

Specifications

Model Number 500-301
Model Number 500-301
Sheath size
  • 12 F
Maximum target lead diameter
  • 7.5 F / 0.098" / 2.50 mm
Minimum tip inner diameter
  • 8.3 F / 0.109" / 2.77 mm
Maximum tip outer diameter
  • 12.5 F / 0.164" / 4.17 mm
Working length
  • 50 cm
Repetition rate
  • 25-80 Hz
Clinical energy setting
  • 30-60 mJ/mm
Model Number 500-302
Model Number 500-302
Sheath size
  • 14 F
Maximum target lead diameter
  • 9.5 F / 0.124"/ 3.17 mm
Minimum tip inner diameter
  • 10.2 F /0.134" / 3.40 mm
Maximum tip outer diameter
  • 14.7 F / 0.192" / 4.88 mm
Working length
  • 50 cm
Repetition rate
  • 25-80 Hz
Clinical energy setting
  • 30-60 mJ/mm
Model Number 500-303
Model Number 500-303
Sheath size
  • 16 F
Maximum target lead diameter
  • 11.5 F / 0.150" / 3.83 mm
Minimum tip inner diameter
  • 12.5 F / 0.164" / 4.17 mm
Maximum tip outer diameter
  • 17.2 F / 0.225" / 5.72 mm
Working length
  • 50 cm
Repetition rate
  • 25-80 Hz
Clinical energy setting
  • 30-60 mJ/mm
SLS II model number 500-001
SLS II model number 500-001
Max. target lead diameter
  • 7.5 F / 0.098" / 2.50 mm
Min. inner tip diameter
  • 8.3 F / 0.109" / 2.77 mm
Max. outer tip diameter
  • 12.5 F / 0.164" / 4.17 mm
Working length
  • 50 cm
Repetition rate
  • 20-40 Hz
Clinical energy setting
  • 30-60 mJ/mm
  • 1. Comparison of average peak push forces required to advance Laser Sheath at 40Hz vs. 80Hz 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. Maytin M, Epstein, L (2011). The challenges of transvenous lead extraction. Heart, 97(5): 425-34.
  • 4. Henrikson, C.A., et al. (2008). How to prevent, recognize, and manage complications of lead extraction. Part III: Procedural factors Heart Rhythm. Jul;5(7):1083-7. Epub 2007 Oct 9.
  • 5. Smith MC, Love CJ. Extraction of transvenous pacing and ICD leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2008:31:736-52.
  • 6. Wilkoff, B.L., et al. (1999). Pacemaker lead extraction with the laser sheath: Results of the Pacing Lead Extraction with Excimer Sheath (PLEXES) trial. JACC, 33(6), 1671-1676.
  • 7. Reduced advancement force lowers the forces applied to leads during extraction, D015861-01, Data on file at Philips
  • 8. Design Verification Report for Ablation Force Testing. D015722, Data on file at Philips.