UK Expert Consensus Statement for the Optimal Use and Clinical Utility of Leadless Pacing Systems on Behalf of the British Heart Rhythm Society

Chronic kidney disease and transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device infection-is there an impact on healthcare utilization, costs, disease progression, and mortality?

AIMS

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are a burden to hospitals and costly for healthcare systems. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases the risk of CIED infections, but its differential impact on healthcare utilization, costs, and outcomes is not known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective analysis used de-identified Medicare Fee-for-Service claims to identify patients implanted with a CIED from July 2016 to December 2020. Outcomes were defined as hospital days and costs within 12 months post-implant, post-infection CKD progression, and mortality. Generalized linear models were used to calculate results by CKD and infection status while controlling for other comorbidities, with differences between cohorts representing the incremental effect associated with CKD. A total of 584 543 patients had a CIED implant, of which 26% had CKD and 1.4% had a device infection. The average total days in hospital for infected patients was 23.5 days with CKD vs. 14.5 days (P < 0.001) without. The average cost of infection was $121 756 with CKD vs. $55 366 without (P < 0.001), leading to an incremental cost associated with CKD of $66 390. Infected patients with CKD were more likely to have septicaemia or severe sepsis than those without CKD (11.0 vs. 4.6%, P < 0.001). After infection, CKD patients were more likely to experience CKD progression (hazard ratio 1.26, P < 0.001) and mortality (hazard ratio 1.89, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac implantable electronic device infection in patients with CKD was associated with more healthcare utilization, higher cost, greater disease progression, and greater mortality compared to patients without CKD.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

The application of fluoroscopic criteria to define leadless pacemakers implant position and the effect of location on device performance

OBJECTIVE

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) were designed to avoid complications associated with transvenous pacing. To minimise risk of perforations, there is preference towards implanting LPs into the septum rather than the apex or free wall.An objective yet feasible way of characterising the LP location is currently lacking. We report a simple radiological method of defining LP position and our analysis of the impact of implantation site on performance of LPs.

METHODS

The first 100 LPs implanted at our UK centre were reviewed and the devices' positions in fluoroscopy images and X-rays based on conventional criteria for lead positions and conventional practice for LPs positioning were assessed. The devices' electrical parameters at implant and at the latest device follow-up were used to compare performance between implantation sites.

RESULTS

35.6% of implants were in the apex. 31.1% in mid-septum, 16.7% in apical septum, 15.5% on the septal right ventricular inflow and 1.1% in the septal RV outflow tract. We had no major complications.Thresholds, R-wave amplitudes, and impedance averaged at 0.67 ± 0.41 V, 10.64 ± 5.30 mV, and 777.67 ± 201.67 Ohms, respectively, at the time of implantation, and 0.66 ± 0.39 V, 14.08 ± 6.14 mV, and 564.29 ± 96.76 Ohms at the last device check. There was no difference in the pacing thresholds or impedance between implant sites.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a simple, reproducible way of defining the LP location which can help standardise the assessment of the device location sites across LP implantation centres.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Emphasis on the safety and reliability of the leadless pacemakers in a real-world setting.Establishing the variation in the implantation sites for leadless pacemakers and reporting the effect of the implantation sites on the devices' performance.We propose a simple, reproducible way of defining the LP location which can help standardise the assessment of the device location sites across LP implantation centres.