The jugular approach for leadless pacing: A novel and safe alternative.

AIMS: To evaluate safety of leadless pacemaker implantation through the internal jugular vein in a larger cohort with longer follow-up. Moreover, feasibility of non-apical pacing as well as relation between pacing site and QRS duration were assessed. METHODS: Eighty Two consecutive patients, who received a leadless pacemaker though the internal jugular vein, were included. Electrical parameters were measured at regular follow-up and any complications were registered. Paced QRS interval was compared for three pacing sites, RVOT, RV mid septum, and RV apical septum. RESULTS: In all patients, the leadless pacemaker was implanted successfully. In 69 patients, the device was implanted in a non-apical position. In 71% of cases, the device could be deployed at first attempt. The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4 min (range 0.9-51) The paced QRS interval was significantly narrower for non-apical pacing sites compared to apical pacing si 156  vs. 179 ms. p = .04, respectively. During mean follow-up of 16 months (range 0-43 months), electrical parameters remained stable. Two complications occurred, which could be resolved during the implant procedure. There were no access site related complications. CONCLUSION: The jugular approach for leadless pacemaker implantation is feasible and may avoid vascular complications. It facilitates non-apical positioning of leadless pacemakers leading to a narrower paced QRS interval. The jugular approach allows for immediate post procedural ambulation.

Leadless pacing: Going for the jugular.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacing is generally performed from a femoral approach. However, the femoral route is not always available. Until now, data regarding implantation using a jugular approach other than a single-case report were lacking. METHODS: The case records of all patients who underwent internal jugular venous (IJV) leadless pacemaker implantation (Micra, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) at our center were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Nineteen patients underwent IJV leadless pacemaker implantation, nine females, mean age of 77.5 ±9.6  years; permanent atrial fibrillation in all patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Implant indication was atrioventricular conduction disturbance in 10, pre-AV node ablation in seven, and replacement of a conventional VVI pacemaker in two (infection in one and lead malfunction in the other). The device was positioned at the superior septum in seven patients, apicoseptal in seven patients, and midseptal in five patients. In 12 patients, a sufficient device position was obtained at the first attempt, in three at the second, in one at the third, in one at the fourth, and in two at the sixth attempt. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.39V at 0.24-ms pulse width, sensed amplitude was 9.1 ± 3.2 mV, mean fluoroscopy duration was 3.1 ± 1.6 min. There were no vascular or other complications. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in 18 of 19 patients. CONCLUSION: Although experience is minimal, we suggest that the IJV approach is safe and may be considered in patients where the femoral approach is contraindicated.

Five-year safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers in a Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Adequate real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been demonstrated up to 3 years after implantation. Longer-term data are warranted to assess the net clinical benefit of leadless pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of LP therapy in a real-world cohort. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients with a first LP implantation from December 21, 2012, to December 13, 2016, in 6 Dutch high-volume centers were included. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of major procedure- or device-related complications (ie, requiring surgery) at 5-year follow-up. Analyses were performed with and without Nanostim battery advisory-related complications. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a pacing capture threshold ≤2.0 V at implantation and without ≥1.5-V increase at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients were included (mean age 79 ± 9 years), 93 (52%) with a Nanostim and 86 (48%) with a Micra VR LP. Mean follow-up duration was 44 ± 26 months. Forty-one major complications occurred, of which 7 were not advisory related. The 5-year major complication rate was 4% without advisory-related complications and 27% including advisory-related complications. No advisory-related major complications occurred a median 10 days (range 0-88 days) postimplantation. The pacing capture threshold was low in 163 of 167 patients (98%) and stable in 157 of 160 (98%). CONCLUSION: The long-term major complication rate without advisory-related complications was low with LPs. No complications occurred after the acute phase and no infections occurred, which may be a specific benefit of LPs. The performance was adequate with a stable pacing capture threshold.