Leadless pacemaker implantation: A feasible and reasonable option in transcatheter heart valve replacement patients

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes between Leadless and Conventional Transvenous Pacemakers Implantation: An Up-to-Date Meta-analysis

Background

Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) are emerging as viable alternatives to conventional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). This study aimed to systematically compare the postoperative outcomes of LCPs and TVPs based on available published studies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature comparing outcomes from LCP and TVP implantations. Data analysis was performed using Stata/MP 17.0. The evaluated endpoints included pericardial effusion or perforation, puncture site events, infective endocarditis, lead or device dislodgement, pocket-related complications, tricuspid regurgitation or dysfunction, any infection, increased right ventricle (RV) pacing threshold, embolism, and thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for heterogeneity if I2 was >50% or p < 0.01, otherwise, the random-effects model was chosen. Publication bias was analyzed if the number studies exceeded ten.

Results

The meta-analysis included 24 observational studies with 78,938 patients, comprising 24,191 with LCP implantation and 54,747 with TVP implantation. The results indicated a significantly lower incidence of lead or device dislodgment (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.91-5.77, p < 0.01), infective endocarditis (OR = 3.62, 95% CI: 3.10-4.24, p < 0.01), and infection (OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.67-9.24, p < 0.01) in the LCP group compared to the TVP group. In contrast, incidences of puncture site complications (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.19-0.32, p < 0.01) and pericardial effusion or perforation (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.28-0.39, p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the LCP group.

Conclusions

Compared with TVP, LCP implantation is associated with a lower risk of infective endocarditis, lead or device dislodgment, infections, and pocket-related complications. However, LCP implantation carries a higher risk of puncture site complications and pericardial effusion or perforation. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of patient-specific factors when choosing between LCP and TVP implantation.

The PROSPERO Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD42023453145).

Comparison of Patient Outcomes Between Leadless vs Transvenous Pacemakers Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the effectiveness of leadless pacemaker implantation for conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the national trends in the use of leadless pacemaker implantation following TAVR and compare its performance with transvenous pacemakers.

METHODS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless or transvenous pacemakers following TAVR between 2017 and 2020 were included. Outcomes included in-hospital overall complications as well as midterm (up to 2 years) all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, infective endocarditis, and device-related complications. Propensity score overlap weighting analysis was used.

RESULTS

A total of 10,338 patients (730 leadless vs 9,608 transvenous) were included. Between 2017 and 2020, there was a 3.5-fold increase in the proportion of leadless pacemakers implanted following TAVR. Leadless pacemaker recipients had more comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with leadless pacemakers experienced a lower rate of in-hospital overall complications compared with patients who received transvenous pacemakers (7.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.014). In the midterm, we found no significant differences in all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.96-1.32; P = 0.15), heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; P = 0.24), or infective endocarditis (subdistribution HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.44-2.17; P = 0.95) between the 2 groups, but leadless pacemakers were associated with a lower risk of device-related complications (subdistribution HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.21-0.64; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Leadless pacemakers are increasingly being used for conduction disturbance following TAVR and were associated with a lower rate of in-hospital complications and midterm device-related complications compared to transvenous pacemakers without a difference in midterm mortality.

Leadless pacemaker implantation following tricuspid interventions: multicenter collaboration of feasibility and safety

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacing is often required following valve intervention (either surgical or percutaneous); however, tricuspid interventions pose specific challenges to conventional pacing. Therefore, leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation may be the preferred strategy when permanent pacing is required after tricuspid valve intervention.

PURPOSE

To report periprocedural outcomes and follow-up of patients undergoing implantation of a LP system following tricuspid valve interventions.

METHODS

Patients with previous tricuspid valve intervention at the time of attempted implantation of a LP (MicraTM, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) were included.

RESULTS

Between 2019 and 2022, 40 patients underwent LP implantations following tricuspid interventions in 5 large tertiary centers. The mean age was 68.9 ± 13.7 years, and 48% patients were male. The indication for pacing was as following: AVB in 27 (68%) patients, AF with slow ventricular response in 10 (25%) patients, and refractory rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) referred to AV junction ablation in 3 (7%) patients. Most of the patients received Micra VR (78%). The procedure was successful in all patients. The mean procedural time is 58 ± 32 min, and the median fluoroscopy time is 7.5 min. Electrical parameters were within normal range (threshold: 1.35 ± 1.2 V@0.24 ms, impedance: 772 ± 245 Ohm, R-wave: 6.9 ± 5.4 mV). No acute complications were observed. During a mean follow-up of 10 months, electrical parameters remained stable, and 4 deaths were occurred (not related to the procedure).

CONCLUSION

A LP is a safe and efficient option following tricuspid valve interventions.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Leadless Pacemakers: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are promising alternatives to traditional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but their comparative effectiveness and safety in clinical outcomes remain uncertain.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing LPs and TVPs. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model was used for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. We performed a subgroup analysis with studies with multivariate-adjusted data.

RESULTS

We included 21 studies involving 47,229 patients, of whom 12,199 (25.8%) underwent LP implantation. Compared with TVPs, LPs were associated with a significantly lower risk of overall complications (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; p < 0.01), dislodgement (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.20-0.56; p < 0.01), and pneumothorax (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.01). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed in the overall analysis (OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.65-3.15; p = 0.35) and in studies with multivariate-adjusted data (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.78; p = 0.43). However, LPs were associated with a higher risk of pericardial effusion (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.39-4.38; p < 0.01) and cardiac tamponade (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.41-5.83; p < 0.01). LPs also demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold (MD -0.19 V; 95% CI [-0.23 V]-[-0.16 V]; p < 0.01), but no significant difference in impedance (MD 32.63 ohms; 95% CI [-22.50 ohms]-[87.76 ohms]; p = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that LPs were associated with lower overall complication rates and similar effectiveness to TVPs. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these results.

MICRA AV implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as a breakthrough therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. While TAVR has revolutionized the management of aortic valve disease, the procedure may be associated with the development of conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. Traditionally, conventional transvenous pacemakers have been used to address these complications. However, the introduction of leadless pacemaker technology, such as the MICRA Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS), offers a novel alternative.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study where all patients who underwent TAVR at our center and subsequently required permanent pacemaker implantation within 30 days were reviewed. We included only the patients who underwent leadless pacemaker placement. We then conducted a retrospective chart review to identify patient and procedural characteristics, procedural details, and relevant clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9 patients were identified. All of the patients underwent MICRA AV placement within 30 days post-TAVR by an interventional cardiologist. The average age of the cohort was 79.6 years with an average STS score of 3.7 %. The majority of the patients received balloon-expandable valves (78 %). There were no procedural complications in any of the patients. At an average follow-up of 353 days, capture thresholds and lead impedance remained stable with an average RV pacing of 13 %.

CONCLUSION

This small, retrospective cohort demonstrates that the use of MICRA AV leadless pacemakers is feasible after TAVR and is associated with low periprocedural complications. Leadless pacemakers provide stable pacing thresholds and AV synchrony.

Pacing and Defibrillation Consideration in the Era of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Tricuspid regurgitation is a commonly encountered valvular pathology in patients with trans-tricuspid pacing or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions are increasingly performed in patients at high surgical risk. Implantation of these valves can lead to the "jailing" of a trans-tricuspid lead. This practice carries both short- and long-term risks of lead failure and subsequent infection without the ability to perform traditional transvenous lead extraction. Herein, this manuscript reviews available therapeutic options for lead management in patients undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The decision to jail a lead may be appropriate in certain high-risk cases, though extraction may be a better option in most cases given the variety of options for re-implant, including leadless pacemakers, valve-sparing systems, epicardial leads, leads placed directly through prosthetic valves, and the completely subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator. A growing number of patients meet the requirement for CIED implantation in the United States. A significant proportion of these patients will have tricuspid valve dysfunction, either related to or independent of their transvenous lead. As with any percutaneous intervention that has shown efficacy, the role of TTVI is also likely to increase as this therapy advances beyond the investigational phase. As such, the role of the heart team in the management of these patients will be increasingly critical in the years to come, and in those patients that have pre-existing CIED leads, we advocate for the involvement of an electrophysiologist in the heart team.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation, Focusing on Patients With Conduction System Disorders Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Analysis

Background

Impairment of the conduction system is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which is typically performed in elderly patients. A leadless pacemaker (LP) may be a suitable option in this frail population, but the available scientific data concerning the efficacy and safety of leadless pacing after TAVR are sparse. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LP implantation in patients with relevant bradycardias after TAVR, compared to other indications.

Methods

Consecutive patients were retrospectively enrolled. Demographics, background heart diseases, interventional parameters, and follow-up data were collected.

Results

A total of 257 consecutive patients who underwent LP implantation were included. In 26 patients, the device was implanted due to bradycardias after TAVR (TAVR group), whereas the remaining 231 patients were in the population without previous TAVR (non-TAVR group). The mean implantation duration (56 ± 22 minutes in the TAVR group vs 48 ± 20 minutes in the non-TAVR group; P = not significant [NS]) and the implantation success rate (100% in the TAVR group vs 98.7% in the non-TAVR group; P = NS) were similar in the 2 cohorts. No significant differences occurred in pacing parameters (sensing, impedance, and threshold, respectively) between the 2 groups, either at implantation or during follow-up. A total of 8 major periprocedural complications (3.1% of patients in total; 3.8% in the TAVR group vs 3.0% in the non-TAVR group; P = NS) occurred within 30 days, without significant difference between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

LP implantation appears to be safe and effective in patients after TAVR, and therefore, this procedure is a suitable option for this often old and frail population.

Comparative assessment of safety with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers (LP) and transvenous pacemakers (TVP) are two stable pacing platforms currently available in clinical practice. Observational data show mixed results with regards to their comparative safety. This meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the comparative safety of LP over TVP.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO registry (CRD42022325376). Six databases were searched for published literature from inception to April 12, 2022. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference were used to estimate the outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 879 studies were imported from the databases. Among these, 41 papers were screened for full text and 17 meet the inclusion criteria. Among them, pooled results showed 42% lower odds of occurrence of complications in the LP group (OR 0.58, CI 0.42-0.80) compared to TVP group. Notably, 70% lower odds of device dislodgment (OR 0.30, CI 0.21-0.43), 46% lower odds of re-intervention (OR 0.54, CI 0.45-0.64), 87% lower odds of pneumothorax (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.57), albeit, 2.65 times higher odds of pericardial effusion (OR 2.65, CI 1.49-4.70) were observed in the LP group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed LP to be a significantly safer modality compared to TVP, in terms of re-intervention, device dislodgment, pneumothoraxes, and overall complications. However, there were higher rates of pericardial effusion in the LP group. There was a diverse number of patients included, and all studies were observational. Randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.

Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions

INTRODUCTION

Permanent pacing indications are common after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have emerged as a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers. However, current commercially available LPs are unable to provide atrial pacing or cardiac resynchronization and relatively little is known about LP outcomes after cardiac surgery and transcatheter valve interventions.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who received a Micra VR (MicraTM MC1VR01) or Micra AV (MicraTM MC1AVR1) (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker following cardiac surgery or transcatheter structural valve intervention between September 2014 and September 2022. Device performance and clinical outcomes, including ventricular pacing burden, ejection fraction, and need for conversion to transvenous pacing systems, were evaluated during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were included, of whom 40 received a Micra VR LP implant, and 38 received a Micra AV LP implant. The mean age of the cohort was 65.9 ± 17.9 years, and 48.1% were females. The follow-up duration for the entire cohort was 1.3 ± 1.1 years: 1.6 ± 1.3 years for the Micra VR group and 0.8 ± 0.5 years for the Micra AV group. Among the cohort, 50 patients had undergone cardiac surgery and 28 underwent transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device electrical performance was excellent during follow-up, with a small but clinically insignificant increase in ventricular pacing threshold and a slight decrease in pacing impedance. The mean right ventricle pacing (RVP) burden significantly decreased over time in the entire cohort (74.3% ± 37.2% postprocedure vs. 47.7% ± 40.6% at last follow-up, p < .001), and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) showed a modest but significant downward trend during follow-up (55.0% ± 10.6% vs. 51.5% ± 11.2% p < .001). Patients with Micra VR implants had significantly reduced LVEF during follow-up (54.1% ± 11.9% vs. 48.8% ± 11.9%, p = .003), whereas LVEF appeared stable in the Micra AV group during follow-up (56.1% ± 9.0% vs. 54.6% ± 9.7%, p = .06). Six patients (7.7%) required conversion to transvenous pacing systems, four who required cardiac resynchronization for drop in LVEF with high RVP burden and two who required dual-chamber pacemakers for symptomatic sinus node dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Leadless pacemakers provide a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers in appropriately selected patients after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device performance is excellent over medium-term follow-up. However, a significant minority of patients require conversion to transvenous pacing systems for cardiac resynchronization or atrial pacing support, demonstrating the need for close electrophysiologic follow-up in this cohort.

Comparison of Safety of Leadless Pacemakers and Transvenous Pacemakers: A Meta-Analysis

Pacemakers have been accessible for six decades, and clearly defined criteria for pacemaker implantation have been established. Within the contemporary clinical practice, two dependable pacing platforms exist leadless pacemakers and transvenous pacemakers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety of leadless pacemakers to transvenous pacemakers. This meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework. A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted across various databases including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, spanning from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis were total complications, all-cause mortality, and device-related complications. Furthermore, secondary outcomes evaluated encompassed the need for reintervention, occurrences of pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, endocarditis, hemothorax, and hematoma. Total 17 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings of this study showed that patients with leadless pacemakers had a lower risk of total complications, device-related complications, pneumothorax, and endocarditis. The risk of reintervention was significantly lower in the leadless pacemaker group. However, compared to a transvenous pacemaker, the risk of pericardial effusion was significantly higher in the leadless pacemaker group. It is important to acknowledge the limitations arising from the lack of extensive long-term follow-up data for leadless pacemakers. As technology evolves, continued research will be essential in uncovering the full spectrum of prolonged complications associated with these devices.

Micra AV leadless pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transvenous pacemaker (PM) implantation is a complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Recently, a second generation of leadless PMs able of atrioventricular (AV) synchronous pacing has been introduced and could be an alternative when ventricular pacing is required after TAVI. Real-world data on Micra AV after TAVI are still lacking. Our aim was to determine the per- and post-procedural outcomes in patients with Micra AV leadless PM implantation after TAVI.

METHODS

A total of 20 consecutive patients underwent Micra AV leadless PM implantation after TAVI between November 2020 and June 2021.

RESULTS

The main indication for ventricular pacing was high-degree AV block (55% of patients) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) associated with prolonged HV interval (45% of patients). At discharge, mean (SD) ventricular pacing threshold was 0.397 ± 0.11 V at 0.24 ms and ventricular impedance was 709.4 ± 139.1 Ω. At 1-month follow-up, 95% of patients were programmed in VDD pacing mode. Mean (SD) ventricular pacing threshold was 0.448 ± 0.094 V at 0.24 ms. In patients with ventricular> pacing > 90% (n = 5), mean AM-VP was 72.5% ± 8.3%. Pacing threshold at 1 month was not significantly different compared to discharge (p = .1088). Mean (SD) impedance was 631.0 ± 111.9 Ω, which remained stable at discharge (p = .0813). No procedural complications occurred during implantation. At 1-month follow-up, two patients displayed atrial under-sensing.

CONCLUSIONS

Micra AV leadless PM implantation after TAVI is associated with a low complication rate and good device performance at 1-month post-implantation.

Evolution of tricuspid valve regurgitation after implantation of a leadless pacemaker - a single center experience, systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Conventional transvenous pacemaker leads may interfere with the tricuspid valve leaflets, tendinous chords, and papillary muscles, resulting in significant tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR). Leadless pacemakers (LLPMs) theoretically cause less mechanical interference with the tricuspid valve apparatus. However, data on TR after LLPM implantation are sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to investigate the prevalence of significant TR before and after LLPM implantation.

Methods

Patients who received a leadless LLPM (Micra™ TPS, Medtronic) between May 2016 and May 2021 at our center were included in this observational study if they had at least a pre‐ and postinterventional echocardiogram (TTE). The evolution of TR severity was assessed. Following a systematic literature review on TR evolution after implantation of a LLPM, data were pooled in a random‐effects meta‐analysis.

Results

We included 69 patients (median age 78 years [interquartile range (IQR) 72–84 years], 26% women). Follow‐up duration between baseline and follow‐up TTE was 11.4 months (IQR 3.5–20.1 months). At follow‐up, overall TR severity was not different compared to baseline (p = .49). Six patients (9%) had new significant TR during follow‐up after LLPM implantation, whereas TR severity improved in seven patients (10%). In the systematic review, we identified seven additional articles that investigated the prevalence of significant TR after LLPM implantation. The meta‐analysis based on 297 patients failed to show a difference in significant TR before and after LLPM implantation (risk ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.97–1.53, p = .11).

Conclusion

To date, there is no substantial evidence for a significant change in TR after implantation of a LLPM.

Evaluation and Management of Heart Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has developed substantially since its inception. Improvements in valve design, valve deployment technologies, preprocedural imaging and increased operator experience have led to a gradual decline in length of hospitalisation after TAVR. Despite these advances, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation for post-TAVR high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) has persisted and has well-established risk factors which can be used to identify patients who are at high risk and advise them accordingly. While most HAVB occurs within 48 hours of the procedure, there is a growing number of patients developing HAVB after initial hospitalisation for TAVR due to the trend for early discharge from hospital. Several observation and management strategies have been proposed. This article reviews major known risk factors for HAVB after TAVR, discusses trends in the timing of HAVB after TAVR and reviews some management strategies for observing transient HAVB after TAVR.

One-year pacing dependency after pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Atrioventricular conductions disturbances, requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), represent a potential complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), However, little is known about the pacemaker dependency after PPI in this patient setting. This systematic review analyses the incidence of PPI, the short-term (1-year) pacing dependency, and predictors for such a state after TAVI.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to identify potentially relevant literature investigating PPI requirement and dependency after TAVI. Study data, patients, and procedural characteristics were extracted. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were extracted.

Results

Data from 23 studies were obtained that included 18,610 patients. The crude incidence of PPI after TAVI was 17% (range, 8.8%-32%). PPI occurred at a median time of 3.2 days (range, 0-30 days). Pacing dependency at 1-year was 47.5% (range, 7%-89%). Self-expandable prosthesis (pooled OR was 2.14 [1.15-3.96]) and baseline right bundle branch block (pooled OR was 2.01 [1.06-3.83]) showed 2-fold greater risk to maintain PPI dependency at 1 year after TAVI.

Conclusions

Although PPI represents a rather frequent event after TAVI, conduction disorders have a temporary nature in almost 50% of the cases with recovery and stabilization after discharge. Preoperative conduction abnormality and type of TAVI are associated with higher PPI dependency at short term.

Implantation of leadless pacing systems in patients early after tricuspid valve surgery: A feasible option

BACKGROUND

After tricuspid valve (TV) surgery due to tricuspid regurgitation (TR), patients needing a permanent pacemaker often receive an epicardial lead implantation. This may result in delayed recovery from open-chest surgery and increased postoperative risk. Leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation may represent a valuable option.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 14 consecutive patients underwent LPM implantation (Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) early after TV surgery. The pacing indication in those patients was atrial fibrillation with a slow atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction or atrial fibrillation and a concomitant AV block III. Three patients already had a pacemaker prior to surgery, which was explanted during TV repair. Three patients received a valve replacement with a bioprosthesis, while the remaining eight patients received a TV repair. All procedural data and device measurements during and after LPM implantation were recorded. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed prior and post LPM implantation, showing no changes in TV or bioprosthesis performance. The device measurements were within an adequate range: threshold: 0.83 ± 0.34 V @ 0.24 ± 0 ms, impedance: 480 ± 58.88 ohm, and R-wave: 10.10 ± 3.60 mV. LPM implantation was successful in all patients with a mean procedural time of 32 ± 11.8 minutes, fluoroscopy time of 3.71 ± 3.15 minutes, and dose-area product of 536.67 ± 811.26 cGy/m² .

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of an LPM early after TV surgery is a feasible option. LPM implantation does not affect TV or bioprosthesis performance in transthoracic echocardiography.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Following Heart Transplantation

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is required in a subset of patients (∼10%) for sinus node dysfunction or atrioventricular block both early and late after heart transplantation. The incidence of PPM implantation has decreased to <5% with the advent of bicaval anastamosis transplantation surgery. Pacing dependence upon follow-up has been variably reported. An even smaller percentage of transplantation recipients (1.5% to 3.4%) undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Rigorous data are lacking for the use of ICDs in the transplantation population and is largely derived from cohort studies and case series. Sudden cardiac death occurs in approximately 10% of transplantation recipients, but multiple nonarrhythmic factors are believed to be responsible, including acute rejection, late graft failure with electromechanical dissociation, and ischemia due to cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the existing data regarding the role for PPMs and ICDs in this population, including leadless PPMs and subcutaneous ICDs, special considerations, and future directions.

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.

Right ventricular failure in congenital heart disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aim to review select literature pertaining to congenital heart disease (CHD)-induced right ventricular (RV) function and failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review recent findings pertaining to children and adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF), systemic RV and hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). We emphasize pathophysiological mechanisms contributing to RV dysfunction in these conditions, the risk factors for adverse outcomes and the continuing challenges in treating these patients. We discuss how recent pathology findings, as well as developments in imaging and computer modeling have broadened our understanding of the pathophysiology of these conditions. We further review developments in the molecular and cellular basis of RV failure; and in particular, the RV molecular response to stress in repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF). We highlight some of the genetic complexities in HLHS and how these may influence the long-term outcomes in these patients.

SUMMARY

Recent literature has led to new understandings in the pathology, pathophysiology, risk factors for adverse outcomes, molecular and genetic basis for RV dysfunction and failure in CHD. Although these findings provide new therapeutic targets, the treatment of RV failure at this time remains limited.