Safety of Implantation of a Leadless Pacemaker via Femoral Approach in the Presence of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Navigating Complex Anatomy During Leadless Pacemaker Implantation

Transvenous pacemakers may lead to wound site complications, such as hematomas and infections. Leadless pacemakers have eliminated these risks. However, when the central venous and/or cardiac anatomy are challenging, their implantation technique may require modification(s). Here, we discuss 3 cases of successful leadless pacemaker implantation in patients with a challenging anatomy. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Tine-Based Leadless Pacemaker: Strategies for Safe Implantation in Unconventional Clinical Scenarios

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have emerged as a meaningful alternative to transvenous pacemakers for single-ventricular pacing. LPs eliminate many of lead- and pocket-associated complications observed with transvenous pacemakers. Owing to the lack of atrioventricular synchronous pacing until recently, the use of LP was generally reserved for those patients who either required minimal ventricular pacing or had permanent atrial fibrillation. The only commercially available LP is the Micra transcatheter pacing system (Micra-TPS, Medtronic Inc. Fridley, Minnesota), which requires insertion of a 27-F (outer diameter) introducer sheath in the femoral vein. The LP is delivered to the right ventricle using a 23-F delivery catheter. Owing to the need for a large-bore sheath, the pivotal studies for the Micra transcatheter pacing system excluded patients with indwelling inferior vena cava filters and included only a few patients with bioprosthetic or repaired tricuspid valve. Subsequent real-world experience has demonstrated the overall safety and feasibility of LP placement, and use in various unconventional clinical settings has been validated, albeit with specific precautions. Additionally, incorporation of adjunctive techniques and strategies can improve the safety of the procedure in routine clinical settings as well. The objective of this state-of-the-art review is to highlight the key procedural elements to facilitate safe and efficient implantation of LP in routine as well as in unique clinical settings.

Tips and Tricks for Safe Retrieval of Tine-based Leadless Pacemakers

As leadless pacing (LP) use is expected to increase, it becomes increasingly essential that operators become familiar with the tools and techniques needed to retrieve an LP successfully. The purpose of this review is to describe a stepwise approach for the successful retrieval of tine-based LP devices, including ways to minimize complications.

Navigating inferior vena cava filters in invasive cardiology procedures: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral venous access (TFV) is the cornerstone of minimally invasive cardiac procedures. Although the presence of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) was considered a relative contraindication to TFV procedures, small experiences have suggested safety. We conducted a systematic review of the available literature on cardiac procedural success of TFV with IVCF in-situ.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar from inception to October 2020 for studies that reported outcomes in patients with IVCFs undergoing TFV for invasive cardiac procedures. We investigated a primary outcome of acute procedural success and reviewed the pooled data for patient demographics, procedural complications, types of IVCF, IVCF dwell time, and procedural specifics.

RESULTS

Out of the 120 studies initially screened, 8 studies were used in the final analysis with a total of 100 patients who underwent 110 procedures. The most common IVCF was the Greenfield Filter (36%), 60% of patients were males and the mean age was 67.8 years. The overall pooled incidence of acute procedural success was 95.45% (95% confidence interval = 89.54-98.1) with no heterogeneity (I²  = 0%, p = 1) and there were no reported filter-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review is the largest study of its kind to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of TFV access in a variety of cardiac procedures in the presence of IVCF.

Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in pacemaker-dependent patients is lower with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers

Introduction

Frequent right AQ4ventricular pacing (≥40%) with a transvenous pacemaker (TVP) is associated with the risk of pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have distinct physical and mechanical differences from TVP. The risk of PICM with LP is not known. To identify incidence, predictors, and long‐term outcomes of PICM in LP and TVP patients.

Methods

The study comprised all pacemaker‐dependent patients with LP or TVP who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥50 from 2014 to 2019. The incidence of PICM (≥10% LVEF drop) was assessed with an echocardiogram. Predictors for PICM were identified using multivariate analysis. Long‐term outcomes after cardiac resynchronization (CRT) were assessed in both groups.

Results

A total of 131 patients with TVP and 67 with LP comprised the study. All patients in the TVP group and the majority in the LP group underwent atrioventricular node ablation. The mean follow‐up duration in TVP and LP groups was 592 ± 549 and 817 ± 600 days, respectively. A total of 18 (13.7%) patients in TVP and 2 (3%) in LP developed PICM after a median duration of 254 (interquartile range: 470) days. The incidence of PICM was significantly higher with TVP compared with LP (p = .02). TVP as pacing modality was a positive (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07) while age was negative (OR: 0.94) predictor for PICM on multivariable analysis. Both patients in LP and all except two in the TVP group responded to CRT.

Conclusion

Incidence of PICM is significantly lower with LP compared with TVP in pacemaker‐dependent patients. Age and TVP as pacing modality were predictors for PICM.

Successful implantation of leadless pacemaker in patient with the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter

Leadless pacemakers have many advantages for some patients in preventing lead- and pocket-related complications. The traveling of the femoral vein is important in the context of normal approach site choice for leadless pacemakers. In this case, the leadless pacemaker could be successfully implanted without disrupting the inferior vena cava filter by using intravascular ultrasound in a hemodialysis patient with complete atrioventricular block and atrial fibrillation who had obstruction of the bilateral subclavian and right femoral veins, and travel abnormality of the left common iliac vein. <Learning objective: The leadless pacemaker is a useful option in patients with complex vascular complications and hemodialysis. However, there are several listed contraindications such as the presence of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter that was excluded in the large-scale trials to leadless pacemakers. Intravascular ultrasound is a useful tool to place the leadless pacemaker without disrupting IVC filter to maintain its filtering capability.>.

Successful implantation of a Micra leadless pacemaker via collateral femoral vein and inferior vena cava filter

This case details the successful implementation of a leadless pacemaker device in a patient with multiple venous occlusions and an IVC filter. As the incidence of IVC filters increases in patients with dysrhythmias, further investigations are required to determine the risk and safety of leadless pacemaker placement in this population.