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

Management of anesthesia for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory

The complexity of cardiac electrophysiology procedures has increased significantly during the past 3 decades. Anesthesia requirements of these procedures can differ on the basis of patient- and procedure-specific factors. This manuscript outlines various anesthesia strategies for cardiac implantable electronic devices and electrophysiology procedures, including preprocedural, procedural, and postprocedural management. A team-based approach with collaboration between cardiac electrophysiologists and anesthesiologists is required with careful preprocedural and intraprocedural planning. Given the recent advances in electrophysiology, there is a need for specialized cardiac electrophysiology anesthesia care to improve the efficacy and safety of the procedures.

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.

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.

Single-Chamber Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From Campania Leadless Registry

Introduction:

Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF.

Materials and Methods:

All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication.

Results:

A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan–Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41–2.16; p = 0.88].

Conclusion:

Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

Tricuspid Valve Replacement in a Patient with a Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker: Current Guidelines and Recommendations for Perioperative Management

Leadless cardiac pacemakers were developed to reduce complications associated with conventional transvenous pacemakers. While this technology is still relatively new, devices are increasingly being implanted. The perioperative management of patients with these devices has been underreported; we thus seek to add to the limited body of knowledge of perioperative management of patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers. An elderly female patient with a Micra VR transcatheter pacing system leadless cardiac pacemaker placed for tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome with intermittent complete heart block was scheduled for elective tricuspid valve replacement for severe tricuspid regurgitation. Pacemaker interrogation was performed several hours prior to the scheduled surgery based on the electrophysiologist's availability; the device was kept in its programmed VVIR mode, and the base rate was increased from 60 to 80 beats per minute in anticipation of the upcoming surgery. Upon preoperative evaluation, the anesthesiologist asked that the electrophysiology team be placed on standby intraoperatively due to the concern that either oversensing in the setting of pacemaker dependence and/or undesirable tachycardia from rate-responsive pacing could occur. The surgeon used monopolar electrocautery for the duration of the cardiac surgery. Despite the patient having evidence of pacemaker dependence in the intensive care unit preoperatively, no electromagnetic interference leading to oversensing nor rate modulation was detected during intraoperative electrocardiographic and intraarterial invasive monitoring. Evidence-based guidelines regarding perioperative management specifically of leadless cardiac pacemakers do not exist. As these devices become more prevalent, further evaluation will be paramount to determine whether existing guidelines for perioperative management of conventional transvenous pacemakers apply.

Ultrasound guided axillary vein access: An alternative approach to venous access for cardiac device implantation

INTRODUCTION

Ultrasound guided axillary vein access (UGAVA) is an emerging approach for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation not widely utilized.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective, age and sex-matched cohort study of CIED implantation from January 2017 to July 2019 comparing UGAVA before incision to venous access obtained after incision without ultrasound (conventional). The study population included 561 patients (187 with attempted UGAVA, 68 ± 13 years old, 43% women, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8 kg/m² , 15% right-sided, 43% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 15% upgrades). UGAVA was successful in 178/187 patients (95%). In nine patients where UGAVA was abandoned, the vein was too deep for access before incision. BMI was higher in abandoned patients than successful UGAVA (38 ± 6 vs. 28 ± 6 kg/m² , p < .0001). Median time from local anesthetic to completion of UGAVA was 7 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-10) and median procedure time 61 min (IQR: 50-92). UGAVA changed implant laterality in two patients (avoiding an extra incision in both) and could have prevented unnecessary incision in four conventional patients. Excluding device upgrades, there was reduced fluoroscopy time in UGAVA versus conventional (4 vs. 6 min; IQR: 2-5 vs. 4-9; p < .001). Thirty-day complications were similar in UGAVA versus conventional (n = 7 vs. 26, 4 vs. 7%; p = .13, p = .41 adjusting for upgrades), partly driven by a trend towards reduced pneumothorax (n = 0 vs. 3, 0 vs. 1%; p = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

UGAVA is a safe approach for CIED implantation and helps prevent an extra incision if a barrier is identified changing laterality preincision.

Cardiac Electronic Devices: Future Directions and Challenges

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential management options for patients with brady- and tachyarrhythmias or heart failure with concomitant optimal pharmacotherapy. Despite increasing technological advances, there are still gaps in the management of CIED patients, eg, the growing number of lead- and pocket-related long-term complications, including cardiac device–related infective endocarditis, requires the greatest care. Likewise, patients with CIEDs should be monitored remotely as a part of a comprehensive, holistic management approach. In addition, novel technologies used in smartwatches may be a convenient tool for long-term atrial fibrillation (AF) screening, especially in high-risk populations. Early detection of AF may reduce the risk of stroke and other AF-related complications. The objective of this review article was to provide an overview of novel technologies in cardiac rhythm–management devices and future challenges related to CIEDs.