Long-term outcomes in leadless Micra transcatheter pacemakers with elevated thresholds at implantation: Results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Global Clinical Trial

Next-generation pacemakers: from small devices to biological pacemakers

Electrogenesis in the heart begins in the sinoatrial node and proceeds down the conduction system to originate the heartbeat. Conduction system disorders lead to slow heart rates that are insufficient to support the circulation, necessitating implantation of electronic pacemakers. The typical electronic pacemaker consists of a subcutaneous generator and battery module attached to one or more endocardial leads. New leadless pacemakers can be implanted directly into the right ventricular apex, providing single-chamber pacing without a subcutaneous generator. Modern pacemakers are generally reliable, and their programmability provides options for different pacing modes tailored to specific clinical needs. Advances in device technology will probably include alternative energy sources and dual-chamber leadless pacing in the not-too-distant future. Although effective, current electronic devices have limitations related to lead or generator malfunction, lack of autonomic responsiveness, undesirable interactions with strong magnetic fields, and device-related infections. Biological pacemakers, generated by somatic gene transfer, cell fusion, or cell transplantation, provide an alternative to electronic devices. Somatic reprogramming strategies, which involve transfer of genes encoding transcription factors to transform working myocardium into a surrogate sinoatrial node, are furthest along in the translational pipeline. Even as electronic pacemakers become smaller and less invasive, biological pacemakers might expand the therapeutic armamentarium for conduction system disorders.

Leadless Pacing: Current State and Future Direction

Leadless pacing is now an established alternative to conventional pacing with subcutaneous pocket and transvenous lead for patients with class I or II single-chamber pacing indication. Available 12-month follow-up data shows a 48% fewer major complication rate in patients with Micra™ compared to a historical control group in a nonrandomized study [1]. There is one system with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and two with the Communauté Européenne (CE) mark. The OPS code for the implantation is 8-83d.3 and the procedure has recently been rated as a "new Examination and Treatment Method (NUB)" in the German DRG system, meaning adequate reimbursement is negotiable with health insurance providers. The systems offer similar generator longevity and programming possibilities as conventional pacemaker systems, including rate response, remote monitoring, and MRI safety. The biggest downsides to date are limitations to single-chamber stimulation, lack of long-time data, and concerns of handling of the system at the end of its life span. However, implant procedure complication rates and procedure times do not exceed conventional pacemaker operations, and proper training and patient selection is provided.