Early Trends in Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: Evaluating Nationwide In-Hospital Outcomes

Trends in safety of catheter-based electrophysiology procedures in the last 2 decades: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rapid technologic development and expansion of procedural expertise have led to widespread proliferation of catheter-based electrophysiology procedures. It is unclear whether these advances come at cost to patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to assess complication rates after modern electrophysiology procedures during the lifetime of the procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed to identify relevant data published before May 30, 2023. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: prospective trials or registries, including comprehensive complications data; and patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, ventricular tachyarrhythmia ablation, leadless cardiac pacemaker implantation, and percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. Pooled incidences of procedure-related complications were individually assessed by random effects models to account for heterogeneity. Temporal trends in complications were investigated by clustering trials by publication year (2000-2018 vs 2019-2023).

RESULTS

A total of 174 studies (43,914 patients) met criteria for analysis: 126 studies of atrial fibrillation ablation (n = 24,057), 25 studies of ventricular tachyarrhythmia ablation (n = 1781), 21 studies of leadless cardiac pacemaker (n = 8896), and 18 studies of left atrial appendage occlusion (n = 9180). The pooled incidences of serious procedure-related complications (3.49% [2000-2018] vs 3.05% [2019-2023]; P < .001), procedure-related stroke (0.46% vs 0.28%; P = .002), pericardial effusion requiring intervention (1.02% vs 0.83%; P = .037), and procedure-related death (0.15% vs 0.06%; P = .003) significantly decreased over time. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of vascular complications over time (1.86% vs 1.88%; P = .888).

CONCLUSION

Despite an increase in cardiac electrophysiology procedures, procedural safety has improved over time.

Association of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease with procedural complications and inpatient outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantations across the United States

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers have emerged as a promising alternative to transvenous pacemakers in patients with kidney disease. However, studies investigating leadless pacemaker outcomes and complications based on kidney dysfunction are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) with inpatient complications and outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantations.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were used to identify patients with CKD and ESRD who underwent leadless pacemaker implantations in the United States from 2016 to 2020. Study end points assessed included inpatient complications, outcomes, and resource utilization of leadless pacemaker implantations.

RESULTS

A total of 29,005 leadless pacemaker placements were identified. Patients with CKD (n = 5245 [18.1%]) and ESRD (n = 3790 [13.1%]) were younger than patients without CKD and had higher prevalence of important comorbidities. In crude analysis, ESRD was associated with higher prevalence of major complications, peripheral vascular complications, and inpatient mortality. After multivariable adjustment, CKD and ESRD were associated with inpatient mortality (CKD: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.40-1.86]; ESRD: aOR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.18-1.63]) and prolonged length of stay (CKD: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.46-1.66]; ESRD: aOR, 1.81 [95% CI 1.67-1.96]). ESRD was also associated with higher hospitalization costs (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.77) and major complications (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57) after leadless pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-third of patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation had CKD or ESRD. CKD and ESRD were associated with greater length and cost of stay and inpatient mortality.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the volume, cost, and outcomes of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in the United States

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, professional societies recommended deferral of elective procedures for optimal resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess changes in procedural trends and outcomes of electrophysiology (EP) procedures during the pandemic.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample databases were used to identify all EP procedures performed in the United States (2016-2020) by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. We evaluated trends in utilization, cost/revenue, and outcomes from EP procedures performed.

RESULTS

An estimated 1.35 million EP procedures (82% devices and 18% catheter ablations) were performed (2016-2020) with significant yearly uptrend. During the pandemic, there was a substantial decline in EP procedure utilization from a 5-year peak of 298 cases/million population in the second quarter of 2019 to a nadir of 220 cases in the second quarter of 2020. In 2020, the pandemic was associated with the loss of 50,233 projected EP procedures (39,337 devices and 10,896 ablations) with subsequent revenue loss of $7.06 billion. This deficit was driven by revenue deficit from dual-chamber permanent pacemaker (PPM) utilization ($2.88 billion, 49.3% of lost cases), ablation procedures ($1.84 billion, 21.7% of lost cases), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation ($1.36 billion, 12.0% of lost cases). To the contrary, there was a 9.4% increase in the utilization of leadless PPM. EP device implantation during the pandemic was associated with higher adverse in-hospital events (9.4% vs 8.0%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the United States, the significant decline in EP procedures during the pandemic was primarily driven by the reduction in dual-chamber PPM utilization, followed by arrhythmia ablation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. There was a substantial increase in leadless PPM utilization during the pandemic.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Patients Who Underwent Leadless Pacemaker Implantation

Evidence regarding racial disparities in leadless pacemaker (LP) utilization and outcomes is limited. We aimed to explore ethnicity-based disparities in LP utilization and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent LP implantation. All consecutive patients who underwent LP between January 2019 and January 2023 at our institution were included. Charts were reviewed for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, cardiac rehospitalization, worsening heart failure (HF) or HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 196 adult patients underwent LP implantation during the study period (48% Caucasians, 36.2% Hispanic, 8.2% Asians, and 7.7% African-American). The groups were balanced with respect to baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and procedure-related complications. During the median follow-up of 104 days (interquartile range 24 to 382), no statistically significant differences were observed in worsening HF or HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality among the ethnic groups. After multivariable logistic regression, Asian individuals had higher odds of cardiac readmissions (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 12.3, p = 0.01). Patients from racial and ethnic minorities face significant inequities in arrhythmia care, including patients who have undergone LP implantation. Awareness and a system-based approach (understanding cultural preferences, effective application of evidence-based guidelines, and population-based policies) are crucial to lessen disparities in health care among minorities.

Intracardiac leadless versus transvenous permanent pacemaker implantation: Impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization

BACKGROUND

Transvenous permanent pacemakers are used frequently to treat cardiac rhythm disorders. Recently, intracardiac leadless pacemakers offer potential treatment using an alternative insertion procedure due to their novel design. Literature comparing outcomes between the two devices is scarce. We aim to assess the impact of intracardiac leadless pacemakers on readmissions and hospitalization trends.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Readmissions Database from 2016 to 2019, seeking patients admitted for sick sinus syndrome, second-degree-, or third-degree atrioventricular block who received either a transvenous permanent pacemaker or an intracardiac leadless pacemaker. Patients were stratified by device type and assessed for 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, and healthcare utilization. Descriptive statistics, Cox proportional hazards, and multivariate regressions were used to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, 21,782 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 81.07 years, and 45.52 % were female. No statistical difference was noted for 30-day readmissions (HR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.92-1.41, p = 0.225) and inpatient mortality (HR 1.36, 95 % CI 0.71-2.62, p = 0.352) between the transvenous and intracardiac groups. Multivariate linear regression revealed that length of stay was 0.54 (95 % CI 0.26-0.83, p < 0.001) days longer for the intracardiac group.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization outcomes associated with intracardiac leadless pacemakers are comparable to traditional transvenous permanent pacemakers. Patients may benefit from using this new device without incurring additional resource utilization. Further studies are needed to compare long-term outcomes between transvenous and intracardiac pacemakers.

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.

Differences in patient characteristics, clinical practice and outcomes of cardiac implantable electric device therapy between Japan and the USA: a cross-sectional study using data from nationally representative administrative databases

OBJECTIVES

To identify differences in patient characteristics, clinical practice and outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy between Japan and the USA.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Nationally representative administrative databases from Japan and the USA containing hospitalisations with first-time implantations of pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac-resynchronisation therapy with or without defibrillators (CRTP/CRTD).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients hospitalised with first-time implantations of CIEDs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

In-hospital mortality, in-hospital complication and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 107 339 (median age 78 (71-84), 48 415 women) and 295 584 (age 76 (67-83), 127 349 women) records with CIED implantations were included from Japan and the USA, respectively. Proportion of women in defibrillator recipients was lower in Japan than in the USA (ICD, 21% vs 28%, p<0.001; CRTD, 24% vs 29%, p<0.001). Length of stay after CIED implantation was longer in Japan than in the USA for all device types (conventional pacemaker, 8(7-11) vs 1 (1-3) days, p<0.001; leadless pacemaker, 5 (3-9) vs 2 (1-5) days, p<0.001; ICD, 8 (7-11) vs 1 (1-3) days, p<0.001, CRTP, 9 (7-13) vs 2 (1-4) days, p<0.001; CRTD, 9 (8-14) vs 2 (1-4) days, p<0.001). In-hospital mortality after CIED implantation was similar between Japan and the USA ((OR) (95% CI), conventional pacemaker 0.58 (0.83 to 1.004); ICD 0.77 (0.57 to 1.03); CRTP 0.85 (0.51 to 1.44); CRTD 1.11 (0.81 to 1.51)), except that after leadless pacemaker implantation in Japan was lower than that in the USA (0.32 (0.23 to 0.43)). 30-day readmission rates were lower in Japan than in the USA for all device types (conventional pacemaker 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57); leadless pacemaker 0.50 (0.43 to 0.58); ICD 0.54 (0.49 to 0.58); CRTP 0.51 (0.42 to 0.62); CRTD 0.57 (0.51 to 0.64)).

CONCLUSIONS

International variations in patient characteristics, practice and outcomes were observed. In-hospital mortality after CIED implantation was similar between Japan and the USA, except in cases of leadless pacemaker recipients.