Simultaneous leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation-When vascular options have run out

The Effectiveness and Safety of Leadless Pacemakers: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are promising alternatives to traditional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but their comparative effectiveness and safety in clinical outcomes remain uncertain.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing LPs and TVPs. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model was used for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. We performed a subgroup analysis with studies with multivariate-adjusted data.

RESULTS

We included 21 studies involving 47,229 patients, of whom 12,199 (25.8%) underwent LP implantation. Compared with TVPs, LPs were associated with a significantly lower risk of overall complications (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; p < 0.01), dislodgement (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.20-0.56; p < 0.01), and pneumothorax (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.01). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed in the overall analysis (OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.65-3.15; p = 0.35) and in studies with multivariate-adjusted data (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.78; p = 0.43). However, LPs were associated with a higher risk of pericardial effusion (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.39-4.38; p < 0.01) and cardiac tamponade (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.41-5.83; p < 0.01). LPs also demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold (MD -0.19 V; 95% CI [-0.23 V]-[-0.16 V]; p < 0.01), but no significant difference in impedance (MD 32.63 ohms; 95% CI [-22.50 ohms]-[87.76 ohms]; p = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that LPs were associated with lower overall complication rates and similar effectiveness to TVPs. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these results.

Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker implantation for patients at high risk of infection: a retrospective case series report

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP) are alternative options for patients at high risk of infection requiring ICD and pacing therapy. In this analysis, we described the simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP in patients with high infectious risk.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised patients referred to our institution for ICD implantation due to high-risk factors of infection.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 13 patients were referred, including 11 with infected ICD and 2 for first ICD implantation in the presence of high-risk factors. In cases of infected ICD, successful extraction was performed using a mechanical dilatation technique. Reimplantation was delayed until resolution of infection with antibiotic therapy. The devices were implanted during a single procedure, with S-ICD implantation following LP placement for verification of sensing adequacy through surface ECG screening. Suitable vectors for sensing during inhibited and ventricular pacing were identified in all patients. Defibrillation testing was effective, and no issues with double counting or undersensing were observed. The postoperative period was uneventful, and during a median follow-up of 35 months, no complications or infections were reported. The median ventricular pacing percentage was 5%, and a single inappropriate shock episode due to myopotential interference was reported and resolved by reprogramming the sensing vector.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP is feasible and safe in patients at high risk of infection requiring both ICD and pacing therapy. This combined approach provides an effective solution for these patients.

Leadless Pacemakers: State of the Art and Selection of the Ideal Candidate

The field of cardiac pacing has been defined by constant development to provide efficacious, safe, and reliable therapy. Traditional pacing utilizes transvenous leads, which dwell in the venous system and place patients at risk for complications, including pneumothorax, bleeding, infection, vascular obstruction, and valvular compromise. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing while providing safe and effective pacing therapy for an increasing population of patients. The Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system was approved by the FDA in April of 2016 and the Abbott Aveir pacemaker was approved in April of 2022. Several additional leadless pacemakers are in various stages of development and testing. There exists limited guidance on the selection of the ideal candidate for leadless pacemakers. Advantages of leadless pacemakers include decreased infection risk, overcoming limited vascular access, and avoidance of interaction with the tricuspid valve apparatus. Disadvantages of leadless pacemakers include right ventricular-only pacing, unclear lifecycle management, cost, perforation risk, and lack of integration with defibrillator systems. This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art of leadless pacemakers, currently approved systems, clinical trials and real-world evidence, considerations for patient selection, and future directions of this promising technology.

Simultaneous Leadless Pacemaker and Subcutaneous ICD Implantation With Intraoperative Screening: Workflow in Two Patients

A communicating subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and leadless pacemaker system is being developed for patients who require both pacing and ICD therapy. It is important to ensure that the paced morphology from the leadless pacemaker will be sensed appropriately by the subcutaneous ICD. We present 2 cases illustrating our approach and workflow. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Treatment Strategy for Fatal Arrhythmias in Ebstein's Anomaly Combined With Leadless Pacemaker and S-ICD Implantations

The management of heart rhythm disorders in patients with adult congenital heart disease and limited vascular access is challenging. We present the case of a 38-year-old woman with Ebstein's anomaly who underwent implantation of a combination of a leadless pacemaker and a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to manage fatal arrhythmias. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Impact of right ventricular pacing site on the subcutaneous ICD sensing-a step towards personalised device therapy?

BACKGROUND

Patients with an existing subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD) may develop a pacing indication. When transvenous pacing is not feasible, combining an S-ICD and a leadless pacemaker (LP) can be a reasonable option. There are reports of concomitant use of both devices. However, the effect of pacing on the S-ICD sensing is not well studied. We hypothesise that pacing changes R and T-wave amplitudes, causing changes in R:T ratios as perceived by a S-ICD, increasing the risk for T wave oversensing (TWO) during paced rhythm with a subsequent risk of inappropriate shocks.

METHODS

This is a prospective study in patients undergoing electrophysiological studies. Participants were fitted with a Holter®, and the leads were placed to correspond to the vectors of an S-ICD. The right ventricle was paced at four positions for 10 beats each at 8 mA/2 ms. The Holter® traces were analysed, using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effect of pacing on the R:T ratio.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients (age 56.02 ± 16.02, 72% male) were enrolled (81% structurally normal heart, 15% dilated cardiomyopathy, 2% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and 2% adult congenital heart disease). Age, sex, and aetiology had no effect on the R:T ratio. Pacing caused significant changes in the R:T ratio. There was no significant difference in the R:T ratios between the pacing sites (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pacing alters the R:T ratio significantly in most patients, theoretically increasing the risk for TWO and inappropriate shocks. Tailored programming for both devices is important for concomitant use of LPs and S-ICDs.

[New developments in leadless pacing systems]

Leadless pacing systems, especially the Micra™ TPS system, deliver an effective and safe alternative to the previous conventional transvenous systems in patients with impossible transvenous access and seem to be compatible with other implantable devices (S-ICD, deep brain stimulators) with no limitations in efficacy or safety. Also, new outlooks on leadless resynchronization therapy seem promising and could prevent future patients from lead- or operation-associated complications. Current limits to the implementation in everyday clinical practice are mostly the unavailability of the devices or cost issues through lack of health insurance reimbursement. However, more promising data through further studies and rising implantation rates are expected based on the positive current clinical data.