Intraoperative sensing increase predicts long-term pacing threshold in leadless pacemakers

Sex differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: A propensity-matched analysis from the i-LEAPER registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of sex in clinical and procedural outcomes in leadless pacemaker (LPM) patients has not yet been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-related differences in patients undergoing LPM implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients enrolled in the i-LEAPER registry were analyzed. Comparisons between sexes were performed within the overall cohort using an adjusted analysis with 1:1 propensity matching for age and comorbidities. The primary outcome was the comparison of major complication rates. Sex-related differences regarding electrical performance and all-cause mortality during follow-up were deemed secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

In the overall population (n = 1179 patients; median age 80 years), 64.3% were men. After propensity matching, 738 patients with no significant baseline differences among groups were identified. During median follow-up of 25 [interquartile range 24-39] months, female sex was not associated with LPM-related major complications (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-5.84; P = .190) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.42; P = .960). LPM electrical performance results were comparable between groups, except for a higher pacing impedance in women at implant and during follow-up (24 months: 670 [550-800] Ω vs 616 [530-770] Ω; P = .014) that remained within normal limits.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, we found differences in sex-related referral patterns for LPM implantation with an underrepresentation of women, although major complication rate and LPM performance were comparable between sexes. Female patients showed higher impedance values, which had no impact on overall device performance. Electrical parameters remained within normal limits in both groups during the entire follow-up.

Long-term outcomes following transvenous lead extraction: Data from a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has shown a safe and efficacy profile in the intraoperative and short-term setting; however, data on long-term outcomes are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in patients who underwent TLE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who underwent TLE between 2014 and 2016 were retrospectively studied. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death and repeated TLE stratified by infective/non-infective indication. Individual components of the primary outcome were also evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one patients were included in the analysis, 50% extracted for CIED-related infection. Complete procedural success was achieved in 189 patients (99%) with no major acute complications. After a median of 6.5 years, infection indication was associated with significantly lower event-free survival (67% vs. 83% non-infection group, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-3.81, p = 0.04). All-cause mortality rate was higher in the TLE infection group (30% vs. 10%, p < 0.01). The rate of repeated TLE did not differ between groups (4% vs. 7%, p = 0.62). Among patients who had TLE for infection, the presence of vegetation (aHR 2.56; 95%CI 1.17-5.63, p = 0.02) and positive blood cultures (aHR 2.64; 95%CI 1.04-6.70, p = 0.04) were independently associated with the primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent TLE for CIED-related infection exhibit a high mortality risk during long-term follow-up. Vegetation and positive blood cultures in patients with CIED-related infection are associated with a worse prognosis regardless of successful and uncomplicated TLE.

Strategies for Safe Implantation and Effective Performance of Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemakers

Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers to eliminate the complications associated with leads and subcutaneous pockets. However, LPMs still present with complications, such as cardiac perforation, dislodgment, vascular complications, infection, and tricuspid valve regurgitation. Furthermore, the efficacy of the leadless VDD LPMs is influenced by the unachievable 100% atrioventricular synchrony. In this article, we review the available data on the strategy selection, including appropriate patient selection, procedure techniques, device design, and post-implant programming, to minimize the complication rate and maximize the efficacy, and we summarize the clinical settings in which a choice must be made between VVI LPMs, VDD LPMs, or conventional transvenous pacemakers. In addition, we provide an outlook for the technology for the realization of true dual-chamber leadless and battery-less pacemakers.

Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation following transvenous lead extraction in high-volume referral centers: Real-world data from a large international registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data on the real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPMs) post-transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are available.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of LPMs following TLE in comparison with LPMs de novo implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LPM implantation in 12 European centers joining the International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry were enrolled. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related complication rate at implantation and during follow-up (FU) between groups. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 1179 patients enrolled, 15.6% underwent a previous TLE. During a median FU of 33 (interquartile range 24-47) months, LPM-related major complications and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups (TLE group: 1.6% and 5.4% vs de novo group: 2.2% and 7.8%; P = .785 and P = .288, respectively). Pacing threshold (PT) was higher in the TLE group at implantation and during FU, with very high PT (>2 V@0.24 ms) patients being more represented than in the de novo implantation group (5.4% vs 1.6 %; P = .004). When the LPM was deployed at a different right ventricular (RV) location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted, a lower proportion of high PT (>1-2 V@0.24 ms) patients at implantation, 1-month FU, and 12-month FU (5.9% vs 18.2%, P = .012; 3.4% vs 12.9%, P = .026; and 4.3% vs 14.5%, P = .037, respectively) was found.

CONCLUSION

LPMs showed a satisfactory safety and efficacy profile after TLE. Better electrical parameters were obtained when LPMs were implanted at a different RV location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in the Emergency Bradyarrhythmia Setting: Results from a Multicenter European Registry

Background. Data on leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in an emergency setting are currently lacking. Objective. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of LPM implantation for emergency bradyarrhythmia, in patients referred for urgent PM implantation, in a large, multicenter, real-world cohort of LPM recipients. Methods. Two cohorts of LPM patients, stratified according to the LPM implantation scenario (patients admitted from the emergency department (ED+) vs. elective patients (ED−)) were retrieved from the iLEAPER registry. The primary outcome of the study was a comparison of the peri-procedural complications between the groups. The rates of peri-procedural characteristics (overall procedural and fluoroscopic duration) were deemed secondary outcomes. Results. A total of 1154 patients were enrolled in this project, with patients implanted due to an urgent bradyarrhythmia (ED+) representing 6.2% of the entire cohort. Slow atrial fibrillation and complete + advanced atrioventricular blocks were more frequent in the ED+ cohort (76.3% for ED+ vs. 49.7% for ED−, p = 0.025; 37.5% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). The overall procedural times were longer in the ED+ cohort (60 (45−80) mins vs. 50 (40−65) mins, p < 0.001), showing higher rates of temporary pacing (94.4% for ED+ vs. 28.9% for ED−, p < 0.001). Emergency LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group (6.9% ED+ vs. 4.2% ED−, p = 0.244). Conclusion. LPM implantation is a feasible procedure for the treatment of severe bradyarrhythmia in an urgent setting. Urgent LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group, but it was associated with longer procedural times.

The Impact of Cardiac Devices on Patients’ Quality of Life—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The implantation of cardiac devices significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Arrhythmias as well as therapy delivered by the device may impact quality of life of patients concerned considerably. Therefore we aimed at conducting a systematic search and meta-analysis of trials examining the impact of the implantation of cardiac devices, namely implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), pacemakers and left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) on quality of life. After pre-registering the trial with the PROSPERO database, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases for relevant publications. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using standardized protocols. A total of 37 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 trials were cohort trials while 6 trials used a randomized controlled design. We found large pre-post effect sizes for positive associations between quality of life and all types of devices. The effect sizes for LVAD, pacemaker and ICD patients were g = 1.64, g = 1.32 and g = 0.64, respectively. There was a lack of trials examining the effect of implantation on quality of life relative to control conditions. Trials assessing quality of life in patients with cardiac devices are still scarce. Yet, the existing data suggest beneficial effects of cardiac devices on quality of life. We recommend that clinical trials on cardiac devices routinely assess quality of life or other parameters of psychological well-being as a decisive study endpoint. Furthermore, improvements in psychological well-being should influence decisions about implantations of cardiac devices and be part of patient education and may impact shared decision-making.

Early, Delayed and Late Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Do the Timing of Onset and Pathogens Matter?

Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) occur at different times after device-related procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the timing of onset and factors influencing the occurrence of all types of CIED infections to identify the type of pathogen and to examine the long-term survival of patients with all types of CIED infections. We performed a post hoc analysis of the clinical data from 3344 patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single high-volume center between 2006 and 2020, including a group of 890 patients with CIED infections. The occurrence of pocket infection (PI), lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE) and PI coexisting with LRIE (PI + LRIE) was assessed at the following time intervals: 0−12 months, 13−36 months and > 36 months since last CIED-related procedure. In the study group, there were 274 (30.79%) early infections, 266 (29.89%) delayed infections and 350 (39.32%) late infections. Pocket infection was the most common early complication (97; 39.43%), while LRIE was predominant over 36 months from the last CIED procedure (172; 54.09%). The most common early infections were PIs that were associated with the preceding CIED-related procedure. Late LRIE was most likely to occur in patients with intracardiac lead abrasion. The probability of early versus late LRIE was higher in patients with CoNS cultures. The timing of infection onset irrespective of its type does not affect long-term survival after transvenous lead extraction. The majority of infectious complications (69%) occur more than 12 months after the last CIED-related procedure. Early infections are probably associated with pocket contamination during CIED-related procedure, while delayed and late systemic infections are related to other lead-dependent factors (especially to intracardiac lead abrasion). Time to LRIE onset is associated with pathogen type. The timing of symptom onset does not affect long-term survival after TLE.