The modular cardiac rhythm management system: the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and the EMBLEM subcutaneous ICD

A Modular Communicative Leadless Pacing-Defibrillator System

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICD cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing is safe remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 86%. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 88%) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 80%).

RESULTS

We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1±12.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemaker-related major complications was 97.5%, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.4%) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3%, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.9%); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.).

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

Superior vena cava obstruction and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices-a new era of leadless devices

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators require the placement of a transvenous lead through the superior vena cava (SVC), which can be difficult if there is stenosis or obstruction of the SVC. Moreover, SVC syndrome may occur after the lead is inserted even if the SVC was intact before the implantation. Therefore, there is need of an appropriate strategy for handling stenosis or obstruction of SVC during lead placement. In addition, advances are being made in CIEDs that do not require transvenous leads, and thus CIEDs without a transvenous lead should be considered depending on the indications and urgency of the particular case. This manuscript is divided into (I) device therapy for patients with SVC obstruction and (II) therapeutic strategy for SVC obstruction after lead implantation. In patients with SVC syndrome, treatment of the SVC occlusion should be based on the individual pathophysiology, and depending on the indications and urgency of the case, treatment with CIEDs that do not require transvenous leads should be considered. Further data must be accumulated to clarify the long-term prognosis of device implantation after treatment of SVC occlusion. In addition, transvenous lead extraction is now widely used for device-related SVC obstruction, and this procedure also merits further accumulation of data.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are being used with increased frequency in children and patients with congenital heart disease. Vascular access complexities, intracardiac shunts, and specific anatomies make these devices particularly appealing for some of these patients. Alternative screening, implantation, and programming techniques should be considered based on patient size, body habitus, anatomy, procedural history, and preference. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates are generally comparable to those seen with transvenous devices. Complications such as infection can occur, although their severity is likely to be less than that seen with transvenous devices. Technical advances are likely to further broaden S-ICD applicability.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

Leadless Pacemakers: Current Achievements and Future Perspectives

Despite the technological advances in pacemaker technology, the transvenous implanted leads are still considered the Achilles' heel of this rhythm-control therapy. The leadless permanent pacemaker system was developed as an option to bypass the weakness of the transvenous approach. Advances in battery technology and deep miniaturisation of electronics now offer the opportunity to implant the whole pacemaker system into the right ventricle. This review aims to provide a comprehensive report on the advent of leadless pacemakers, their clinical usefulness and the future perspectives of this disruptive and promising technology. Further research is required before some of these technologies are safely and routinely used in clinical practice.

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Review

The importance of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the treatment of cardiac rhythm disturbances, heart failure, and the prevention of sudden cardiac death is indisputable. However, CIED therapy is associated with complications, among which infections are particularly unfavourable in terms of prognosis. The diagnosis and management of CIED infections remain complex, with a significant impact on mortality and healthcare costs. For these reasons, the risk factors for CIED infections and methods of their prevention have been assessed in recent years. This review summarises the current state of knowledge on the subject. We also outlined the role of alternative methods, such as subcutaneous defibrillators, leadless pacemakers, and wearable cardioverter defibrillators.

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties

Leadless pacing is a rapidly growing field. Initially designed to provide right ventricular pacing for those who were contraindicated for conventional devices, the technology is growing to explore the potential benefit of avoiding long-term transvenous leads in any patient who requires pacing. In this review, we first examine the safety and performance of leadless pacing devices. We then review the evidence for their use in special populations, such as patients with high risk of device infection, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with vasovagal syncope who represent a younger population who may wish to avoid transvenous pacing. We also summarise the evidence for leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy and conduction system pacing and discuss the challenges of managing issues, such as system revisions, end of battery life and extractions. Finally, we discuss future directions in the field, such as completely leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator devices and whether leadless pacing has the potential to become a first-line therapy in the near future.

Opportunities and drawbacks of the subcutaneous defibrillator across different clinical settings

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system in selected patients. Beyond randomized clinical trials, many observational studies have described the clinical performance of S-ICD across different subgroups of patients.

AREAS COVERED

Our review aimed to describe the opportunities and drawbacks of the S-ICD, focusing on their use in special populations and across different clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice to implant S-ICD should be based on the patient's tailored approach, which takes into account the adequate S-ICD screening at rest or during stress, the infective risk, the ventricular arrhythmia susceptibility, the progressive nature of the underlying disease, the work or sports activity, and the risk of lead-related complications.

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.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Prevention and Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasingly common complication of device therapy. CIED infection confers significant patient morbidity and health care expenditure, hence it is essential that clinicians recognise the contemporary strategies for predicting, reducing and treating these events. Recent technological advances-in particular, the development of antimicrobial envelopes, leadless devices and validated risk scores-present decision-makers with novel strategies for managing this expanding patient population. This review summarises the key issues facing CIED patients and their physicians, and explores the supporting evidence for the latest therapeutic developments in this field.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction: safety, efficacy and outcome

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a suitable alternative for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) patients who have undergone transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Limited data are available on the outcome of S-ICD patients implanted after TLE. We assessed the safety, efficacy, and outcome of S-ICD implantation after TLE of TV-ICD.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 36 consecutive patients with a median age of 52 (44-66) years who underwent S-ICD implantation after TLE of TV-ICD.

RESULTS

Indications for TLE were infection (63.9%) and lead malfunction (36.1%). During a median follow-up of 31 months, 3 patients (8.3%) experienced appropriate therapy and 7 patients (19.4%) experienced complications including inappropriate therapy (n = 4; 11.1%), isolated pocket erosion (n = 2; 5.5%), and ineffective therapy (n = 1; 2.8%). No lead/hardware dysfunction was reported. Premature device explantation occurred in 4 patients (11%). Eight patients (22.2%) died during follow-up, six of them (75%) because of refractory heart failure (HF). There were no S-ICD-related deaths. Predictors of mortality included NYHA class ≥ 2 (HR 5.05; 95% CI 1.00-26.38; p = 0.04), hypertension (HR 22.72; 95% CI 1.05-26.31; p = 0.02), diabetes (HR 10.64; 95% CI 2.05-55.60; p = 0.001) and ischemic heart disease (HR 5.92; 95% CI 1.17-30.30; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidences on the use of S-ICD as an alternative after TV-ICD explantation for both infection and lead failure. Mortality of S-ICD patients who underwent TV-ICD explantation does not appear to be correlated with the presence of a prior infection, S-ICD therapy (appropriate or inappropriate), or S-ICD complications but rather to worsening of HF or other comorbidities.

S-ICDs: advantages and opportunities for improvement

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is currently in its third generation and has been adopted in guidelines and in mainstream clinical practice. Considerable improvements have been made since the introduction of this device over a decade ago.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was undertaken in Pubmed on articles relating to the S-ICD.

EXPERT OPINION

The therapy has been proven to be safe and effective and is a valuable option in selected patients. Nevertheless, there remain many shortcomings of the S-ICD which are discussed in this review, and which hopefully will be addressed by future generations of the device.

Subcutaneous ICD for more and transvenous ICD for few?!

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in primary or secondary prevention with thousands of ICDs implanted every year worldwide. Whilst ICD are more commonly implanted transvenously (TV), this approach carries high risk of peri- and post-procedural complications. Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) have been introduced to overcome the intravascular complications of TV system by placing all metalware outside the chest cavity for those with an indication for a defibrillator and no pacing requirements. In conclusion, a review of the current guidelines recommendations regarding S-ICD may be needed considering the emerging evidence which shows high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming algorithms. A stronger recommendation may be developed for selective patients who have an indication for single-chamber ICD in the absence of negative screening, recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or pacemaker indication. These criteria encapsulate a large proportion (around 70%!) of all ICD eligible patients.

Emerging Technologies in Electrophysiology: From Single Chamber to Biventricular Leadless Pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Transvenous pacemakers have been shown to improve quality of life and mortality in patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction blocks. However, they possess inevitable drawbacks as they have a relatively high incidence of lead and device pocket-related complications. Therefore, leadless pacemakers have emerged as a solution to reduce the complications seen with conventional pacemakers. However, there have been no clinical trials to date comparing transvenous to leadless pacemakers.

SUMMARY

Currently, the Micra TPS or AV device has been approved for commercial use worldwide but is limited to single-chamber pacing with single or dual-chamber sensing. Although the leadless pacemaker, Nanostim, was initially promising, it has been recalled due to concerns of battery failures and is no longer approved in Europe. In addition, the lack of defibrillation capabilities with leadless pacemakers has been a limiting factor; therefore, a leadless pacemaker with the already approved subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator system is currently being studied in humans. Moreover, the WiSE-CRT device has been approved in Europe, with the capabilities for leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), to provide CRT for patients with unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Furthermore, retrieval of leadless pacemakers has been an area of concern; however, clinic data has signaled towards safe extraction of these devices with minimal complications. Key messages: This review will encompass the current literature regarding clinical safety and outcomes of these novel leadless pacemakers and discuss the evolving technologies in the field of cardiac pacing.

Non-traditional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator configurations and insertion techniques: a review of contemporary options

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the treatment of acquired or inherited cardiac diseases associated with a high risk of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Contemporary ICD devices offer reliable arrhythmia detection and discrimination algorithms and deliver highly efficient tachytherapies. Percutaneously inserted transvenous defibrillator coils with pectoral generator placement are the first-line approach in the majority of adults due to their extensively documented clinical benefit and efficiency with comparably low periprocedural implantation risks as well as the option of providing pain-free tachycardia treatment via anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), concomitant bradycardiaprotection, and incorporation in a cardiac resynchronization therapy if indicated. Yet, expanding ICD indications particularly among younger and more complex patient groups as well as the increasingly evident long-term consequences and complications associated with intravascular lead placements promoted the development of alternative ICD configurations. Most established in daily clinical practice is the subcutaneous ICD but other innovative extravascular approaches like epicardial, pericardial, extra-pleural, and most recently substernal defibrillator coil placements have been introduced as well to overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices and allow for individualized treatment strategies tailored to the patients characteristics and needs. The review aims to provide practical solutions for common complications encountered with transvenous ICD systems including restricted venous access, high defibrillation/fibrillation thresholds (DFTs), and recurrent device infections. We summarize the contemporary options for non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations outlining indications, advantages, and disadvantages.

The Subcutaneous ICD: A Review of the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN Trials

The ICD is an important part of the treatment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in many high-risk populations. Traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are associated with certain short- and long- term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed in order to avoid these risks and complications. However, this system is associated with its own set of limitations and complications. First, patient selection is important, as S-ICDs do not provide pacing therapy currently. Second, pre-procedural screening is important to minimise T wave and myopotential oversensing. Finally, until recently, the S-ICD was primarily used in younger patients with fewer co-morbidities and less structural heart disease, limiting the general applicability of the device. S-ICDs achieve excellent rates of arrhythmia conversion and have demonstrated noninferiority to TV-ICDs in terms of complication rates in real-world studies. The objective of this review is to discuss the latest literature, including the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN trials, and to address the risk of inappropriate shocks.

Nontransvenous Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Technology-A Review for the Anesthesiologist

There has been a recent shift in bradycardia pacing and defibrillation therapy to leadless pacemakers and extrathoracic cardioverter-defibrillator technology due to complications associated with transvenous devices. These innovations have implications for anesthesia care, as these novel devices have design and functionality features different from transvenous devices. Current perioperative guidelines do not address management of leadless pacemakers and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, although implantation rates are increasing globally. This article addresses the features and capabilities of nontransvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices, such as the Micra and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and provides guidance for perioperative management.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2020

This article is the third in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This third article focuses on the convergent procedure, His-bundle pacing, a comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillator therapies, the 2020 practice advisory update for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, and a technology update regarding the Micra AV (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), WiSE-CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), and the BAROSTIM NEO (CVRx Inc, Minneapolis, MN).

Single-chamber leadless pacemaker for atrial synchronous or ventricular pacing

Leadless pacing is a major breakthrough in the management of bradyarrhythmia. Results of initial clinical trials that have demonstrated a significant reduction in acute and long-term pacing-related complications have been confirmed by real-world experience in a broader spectrum of patients. Nonetheless current use of a leadless pacemaker is hampered by its limited atrial sensing and pacing capability, as well as battery life-span and retrievability. We review the current clinical outcome data, indications and contraindications, implantation and retrieval techniques, synchronous ventricular pacing, and other clinical considerations. We also provide an overview of the latest advancements in leadless pacing technology including device-to-device communication and energy harvesting technology.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Miniaturized and Micro Devices

Advancement in the miniaturization of high-density power sources, electronic circuits, and communication technologies enabled the construction of miniaturized electronic devices, implanted directly in the heart. These include pacing devices to prevent low heart rates or terminate heart rhythm abnormalities ('arrhythmias'), long-term rhythm monitoring devices for arrhythmia detection in unexplained syncope cases, and heart failure (HF) hemodynamic monitoring devices, enabling the real-time monitoring of cardiac pressures to detect and alert for early fluid overload. These devices were shown to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve HF patients' life quality. Pacing devices include permanent pacemakers (PPM) that maintain normal heart rates, defibrillators that are capable of fast detection and the termination of life-threatening arrhythmias, and cardiac re-synchronization devices that improve cardiac function and the survival of HF patients. Traditionally, these devices are implanted via the venous system ('endovascular') using conductors ('endovascular leads/electrodes') that connect the subcutaneous device battery to the appropriate cardiac chamber. These leads are a potential source of multiple problems, including lead-failure and systemic infection resulting from the lifelong exposure of these leads to bacteria within the venous system. One of the important cardiac innovations in the last decade was the development of a leadless PPM functioning without venous leads, thus circumventing most endovascular PPM-related problems. Leadless PPM's consist of a single device, including a miniaturized power source, electronic chips, and fixating mechanism, directly implanted into the cardiac muscle. Only rare device-related problems and almost no systemic infections occur with these devices. Current leadless PPM's sense and pace only the ventricle. However, a novel leadless device that is capable of sensing both atrium and ventricle was recently FDA approved and miniaturized devices that are designed to synchronize right and left ventricles, using novel intra-body inner-device communication technologies, are under final experiments. This review will cover these novel implantable miniaturized cardiac devices and the basic algorithms and technologies that underlie their development. Advancement in the miniaturization of high-density power sources, electronic circuits, and communication technologies enabled the construction of miniaturized electronic devices, implanted directly in the heart. These include pacing devices to prevent low heart rates or terminate heart rhythm abnormalities ('arrhythmias'), long-term rhythm monitoring devices for arrhythmia detection in unexplained syncope cases, and heart failure (HF) hemodynamic monitoring devices, enabling the real-time monitoring of cardiac pressures to detect and alert early fluid overload. These devices were shown to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve HF patients' life quality. Pacing devices include permanent pacemakers (PPM) that maintain normal heart rates, defibrillators that are capable of fast detection and termination of life-threatening arrhythmias, and cardiac re-synchronization devices that improve cardiac function and survival of HF patients. Traditionally, these devices are implanted via the venous system ('endovascular') using conductors ('endovascular leads/electrodes') that connect the subcutaneous device battery to the appropriate cardiac chamber. These leads are a potential source of multiple problems, including lead-failure and systemic infection that result from the lifelong exposure of these leads to bacteria within the venous system. The development of a leadless PPM functioning without venous leads was one of the important cardiac innovations in the last decade, thus circumventing most endovascular PPM-related problems. Leadless PPM's consist of a single device, including a miniaturized power source, electronic chips, and fixating mechanism, implanted directly into the cardiac muscle. Only rare device-related problems and almost no systemic infections occur with these devices. Current leadless PPM's sense and pace only the ventricle. However, a novel leadless device that is capable of sensing both atrium and ventricle was recently FDA approved and miniaturized devices designed to synchronize right and left ventricles, using novel intra-body inner-device communication technologies, are under final experiments. This review will cover these novel implantable miniaturized cardiac devices and the basic algorithms and technologies that underlie their development.