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

Upgrade from leadless to transvenous pacemaker with left bundle branch area pacing: A case report

An 80-years-old patient with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptomatic, paroxysmal atrioventricular blocks (AVBs) underwent leadless pacemaker (L-PM) implantation. Seven years after implantation, as a consequence of a progression of the AVB towards a persistent form, resulting in an increased need for pacing, he developed a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. He then underwent a successful upgrade from L-PM to a transvenous pacemaker (T-PM) with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). The L-PM did not interfere with the T-PM and was turned off and abandoned. One month after the upgrading the patient showed a significant improvement in cardiac function and functional capacity.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

Bifocal coronary sinus pacing and transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation: an innovative combined approach

One of the most common complications of tricuspid valve replacement is atrioventricular block (AVB), often requiring permanent pacing. The endocardial pacemaker lead, placed in the right ventricle, may sometimes interfere with the implanted prosthesis, causing its early dysfunction and the need for alternative sites of pacing. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first case of a successful combined percutaneous procedure consisting of the implantation of two leads in the coronary sinus for univentricular bifocal pacing and a transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation in a young patient with severe dysfunction of the tricuspid bioprosthesis, requiring permanent pacing for a postsurgical complete atrioventricular block.

Perioperative Considerations for Modern Leadless Pacemakers

Since their initial approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016, leadless pacemakers have become increasingly prevalent. This growth has been driven by an improved adverse effect profile when compared to traditional pacemakers, including lower rates of infection, as well as eliminated risk of pocket hematoma and lead complications. More recently, technology enabling leadless synchronized atrioventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block has vastly expanded the indications for these devices. Anesthesiologists will increasingly be relied upon to safely care for patients with leadless pacemakers undergoing non-electrophysiology procedures and surgery. This article provides an overview of the technology, evidence base, current indications, and unique perioperative considerations for leadless pacemakers.

Improvement of myocardial contractility with leadless endocardial single-lead atrial sensing ventricular pacing in patients with prolonged PQ interval

Aim: Micra AV represents a leadless endocardial pacing system able to detect atrial contractions providing atrioventricular synchrony. A reduction of myocardial contractility may be detected in case of first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB). Materials & methods: In six patients with first-degree AVB (PQ interval ≥220 msec) was evaluated the left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) by speckle tracking (ST) echocardiography during single-lead atrial sensing ventricular pacing (VDD) stimulation as compared with spontaneous rhythm (SR), 24-48 h after Micra AV implantation. Results: A statistically significant difference between the two modalities was observed (LV GLS during SR: -14.7% [interquartile range (IQR) 5.5], LV GLS during VDD pacing: -16.1% [IQR 5.2]; p value = 0.041). Conclusion: Our preliminary results suggest an improvement of myocardial contractility with VDD pacing as compared with SR.

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.

Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: results of a propensity-matched analysis from a multicentre registry

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP.

METHODS

A total of 1,029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. Rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%), and in 12 in CSP (6.0%) (p=0.240). Dividing the matched cohort in three groups with similar baseline characteristics according to the pacing modality (RVP, n=201; HBP, n=128; LBBAP, n=73), HBP patients showed a rate of device-related complications significantly higher compared to RVP patients (8.6 vs. 3.5%; p=0.047), and to LBBAP patients (8.6 vs. 1.3%; p=0.034). LBBAP patients showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of RVP patients (1.3 vs. 3.5%, p=0.358). Most of the complications observed in HBP patients (63.6%) were lead-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering separately HBP and LBBAP, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than both RVP and LBBAP, whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to RVP.