Management of anticoagulation in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation

Peri-Procedural Management of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) in Transcatheter Miniaturized Leadless Pacemaker Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Data on peri-operative management of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) during transcatheter pacing leadless system (TPS) implantations remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate a standardized DOAC management regime consisting of interruption of a single dose prior to implantation and reinitiation within 6-24 h; also, patient clinical characteristics associated with this approach were identified.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing standard TPS implantation procedures from two Swiss tertiary centers were included. DOAC peri-operative management included the standardized approach (Group 1A) or other approaches (Group 1B).

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-two pts (mean age 81.4 ± 7.3 years, 66.3% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 55.5 ± 9.6%) underwent TPS implantation. Two hundred and eighty-two pts (71.9%) were under anticoagulation therapy; 192 pts were treated with DOAC; 90 pts were under vitamin-K antagonist. Patients treated with DOAC less often had structural heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and advanced renal failure. The rate of major peri-procedural complications did not differ between groups 1A (n = 115) and 1B (n = 77) (2.6% and 3.8%, p = 0.685). Compared to 1B, 1A patients were implanted with TPS for slow ventricular rate atrial fibrillation (AF) (p = 0.002), in a better overall clinical status, and implanted electively (<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized peri-procedural DOAC management was more often implemented for elective TPS procedures and did not seem to increase bleeding or thromboembolic adverse events.

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.

Peri-procedural and mid-term follow-up age-related differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: Insights from a multicenter European registry

BACKGROUND

Age-related differences on leadless pacemaker (LP) are poorly described. Aim of this study was to compare clinical indications, periprocedural and mid-term device-associated outcomes in a large real-world cohort of LP patients, stratified by age at implantation.

METHODS

Two cohorts of younger and older patients (≤50 and > 50 years old) were retrieved from the iLEAPER registry. The primary outcome was to compare the underlying indication why a LP was preferred over a transvenous PM across the two cohorts. Rates of peri-procedural and mid-term follow-up major complications as well as LP electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

1154 patients were enrolled, with younger patients representing 6.2% of the entire cohort. Infective and vascular concerns were the most frequent characteristics that led to a LP implantation in the older cohort (45.8% vs 67.7%, p < 0.001; 4.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.006), while patient preference was the leading cause to choose a LP in the younger (47.2% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001). Median overall procedural (52 [40-70] vs 50 [40-65] mins) and fluoroscopy time were similar in both groups. 4.3% of patients experienced periprocedural complications, without differences among groups. Threshold values were higher in the younger, both at discharge and at last follow-up (0.63 [0.5-0.9] vs 0.5 [0.38-0-7] V, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

When considering LP indications, patient preference was more common in younger, while infective and vascular concerns were more frequent in the older cohort. Rates of device-related complications did not differ significantly. Younger patients tended to have a slightly higher pacing threshold at mid-term follow-up.

Periprocedural anticoagulation therapy in patients undergoing micra leadless pacemaker implantation

Over the past decade, there has been significant improvement in the treatment cardiac diseases and symptomatic bradyarrhythmias with the development of leadless pacemaker systems. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker system has been shown to mitigate a lot of the complications associated with traditional pacing systems, which are notably skin pocket and lead-related complications. Numerous studies have shown the low complication rates associated with Micra procedure; however, there have been no specific guidelines or recommendations surrounding periprocedural anticoagulant therapy. This is important because a significant percentage of patients requiring pacemaker therapy have an indication for anticoagulation therapy as well. Multiple studies have shown the safety of uninterrupted anticoagulation during Micra implant, however, there is insufficient high-quality data to recommend periprocedural systemic use of anticoagulation. In this paper, we review the available data surrounding anticoagulation therapy in patients undergoing Micra implantation and the potential bleeding risks associated with this procedure.

Leadless transcatheter pacemaker: Indications, implantation technique and peri-procedural patient management in the Italian clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence.

OUTCOMES OF LEADLESS PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH MECHANICAL HEART VALVES

INTRODUCTION

Device infections constitute a major complication of transvenous pacemakers. Mechanical heart valves (MHV) increase the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and pacemaker infection, requiring lifelong vitamin K-antagonists (VKA), which may affect patient management. Leadless pacemakers (LP) are associated with low infection rates, posing an attractive option in MHV patients requiring permanent pacing.This study describes outcomes following LP implantation in patients with MHV.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study including consecutive patients implanted with an LP at 5 centers between June 2015 and January 2020.Procedural outcomes, antithrombotic management, complications, performance during follow-up and episodes of bacteremia and IE were compared between patients with and without an MHV (MHV and non-MHV groups).

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-nine patients were included (74 in the MHV group, 16.1%, and 385 in the non-MHV group, 83.9%).Procedural outcomes and acute electrical performance were comparable between groups.Vascular complications and cardiac perforation occurred in 2.7 vs. 2.3% (p=1) and 0% vs. 0.8% (p=1) in the MHV group and non-MHV group.One case of IE occurred in the MHV group and 2 in the non-MHV group.In MHV patients, uninterrupted VKA was used in 83.8 %, whereas 16.2 % were heparin-bridged.Vascular complication or tamponade occurred in 1(8.3 %) MHV heparin-bridged patient vs. 1 (1.6 %) MHV uninterrupted VKA patient (p=0.3).

CONCLUSION

LP implantation outcomes in MHV patients are comparable to the general LP population.Device-related infections are rare following LP implantation, including in patients with MHV.In the MHV group, periprocedural anticoagulation management was not associated with significantly different rates of tamponade or vascular complication. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Leadless Pacemaker Implant, Anticoagulation Status, and Outcomes: Results From The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry

BACKGROUND

Early results from the Micra investigational trial and Micra post-approval registry (PAR) demonstrated excellent safety and device performance; however, outcomes based upon anticoagulation status at implant have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To report implant characteristics, perforation rate and vascular related events based upon perioperative oral anticoagulation (AC) strategy in patients undergoing Micra implant.

METHODS

We compared procedure characteristics, major complications, and vascular events, including pericardial effusion, stratified by any AE (including major complications, minor complications and observations) or major complication only according to AC status in the Micra PAR.

RESULTS

Among 1795 patients with AC status available, 585 were not on AC, 795 had AC interrupted, and 415 had AC continued during Micra implant. Non-AC patients tended to be younger, with less history of AF and COPD, and more history of dialysis than interrupted and continued patients. The implant success rate was similar for all groups (99.1%-99.8%). Through 30 days post implant, the overall major complication rate was 3.1% for the non-AC group, 2.6% for the interrupted group, and 1.5% for the continued group. The combined rate for any vascular or pericardial effusion AE did not differ significantly between AC strategies (6.5%, 4.8%, and 3.6% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Implant of Micra appears to be safe and feasible regardless of an interrupted or continued peri-procedural oral anticoagulation strategy, with no increased risk of perforation rate or vascular complications.

Difficulty removing a leadless pacemaker in a post-transfusion patient

A 99-year-old woman with atrial fibrillation bradycardia and symptomatic long pauses underwent a leadless pacemaker implantation after red blood cell transfusion due to anaemia. The patient's blood tests after transfusion showed hypercoagulability; haematocrit, haemoglobin and fibrinogen levels were increased from 24.5% to 33.2%, 76 g/L to 111g/L, and 346 mg/dL to 646 mg/dL, respectively. Blood tests showed no hereditary hypercoagulability disorder and she had no history of thrombophilia. A leadless pacemaker was implanted in the correct position in the right ventricle. Heparin was administered after sheath insertion and the leadless pacemaker system was thoroughly flushed with heparinised saline before the tether was cut; however, removing the tether after leadless pacemaker implantation was difficult because clots had formed on the tether.

Peri-procedural management, implantation feasibility, and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing implantation of leadless pacemakers: European Snapshot Survey

The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey is to assess procedural settings, safety measures, and short-term outcomes associated with implantation of leadless pacemakers (LLPM), across a broad range of tertiary European electrophysiology centres. An internet-based electronic questionnaire (30 questions) concerning implantation settings, peri-procedural routines, complications, and in-hospital patient outcomes was circulated to centres routinely implanting both LLPMs and transvenous pacemakers (TV-PM). The centres were requested to prospectively include consecutive patients implanted with either LLPMs or TV-PMs during the 10-week enrolment period. Overall, 21 centres from four countries enrolled 825 consecutive patients between November 2018 and January 2019, including 69 (9%) implanted with LLPMs. Leadless pacemakers were implanted mainly under local anaesthesia (69%), by an electrophysiologist (60%), in the electrophysiology laboratory (71%); 95% of patients received prophylactic antibiotics prior to implantation. Most patients on chronic oral anticoagulation were operated on-drug (35%), or during short-term (to 48 h) drug withdrawal (54%). Implantation was successful in 98% of patients and the only in-hospital procedure-related complication was groyne haematoma in one patient. This EHRA snapshot survey provides important insights into LLPM implantation routines and patient outcomes. These findings suggest that despite the unfavourable clinical profile of pacemaker recipients, LLPM implantation is associated with relatively low risk of complications and good short-term outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of leadless pacemaker: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Transvenous pacemakers are associated with a significant amount of complications. Leadless pacemakers (LP) are emerging as an alternative to conventional devices. This article provides a systematic review of patient eligibility, safety and clinical outcomes of the LP devices.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search for articles describing the use of LP was conducted. Out of two databases, 24 articles were included in the qualitative analysis. These articles comprised a total of 4739 patients, with follow-up times of 1-38 months. Further information was obtained from 10 more studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

From a population of 4739 patients included in the qualitative analysis, 4670 LP were implanted with success (98.5%). A total of 248 complications were described (5.23%) during the follow-up. The most common were pacing issues such as elevated thresholds, dislodgements or battery failure (68 patients), events at the femoral access site such as hemorrhage, hematoma or pseudoaneurysms (64 patients) and procedure related cardiac injuries such as cardiac perforation, tamponade or pericardial effusion (47 patients). There were 360 deaths during the follow-up and 11 were described as procedure or device related. Four studies presented the strategy of using a combined approach of atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and LP implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadless pacemakers seem to have a relatively low complication rate. These devices may be a good option in patients with an indication for single-chamber pacing, in patients with conditions precluding conventional transvenous pacemaker implantations. Studies directly comparing LP and transvenous pacemakers and data on longer follow-up periods are needed.