Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein.

AIMS: Leadless pacemaker therapy was introduced to overcome lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Implantation via the femoral vein, however, may not always be feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate leadless pacemaker implantation using a jugular vein approach and compare it to the standard implantation via the femoral vein. METHODS AND RESULTS: The records of the first consecutive 100 patients undergoing Micra™ leadless pacemaker implantation via the right internal jugular vein from two centres were included in this study. Peri-procedural safety and efficacy of the jugular approach were compared to the first 100 patients using a femoral implantation approach at the University Hospital Zurich. One hundred patients underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker via the internal jugular vein (mean age, 81.18 ± 8.29, 60% males). Mean procedure time was 35.63 ± 10.29 min with a mean fluoroscopy time of 4.66 ± 5.16 min. The device was positioned at the inferior septum in 25 patients, at the high septum in 24 patients, and mid-septum in 51 patients. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.35 V at 0.24 ms pulse width with a sensed amplitude of 10.0 ± 4.4 mV. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in all patients. Compared with femoral implantation, patients undergoing the jugular approach were of similar age and had similar comorbidities. Mean procedure (48.9 ± 21.0 min) and fluoroscopy times (7.7 ± 7.8 min, both P < 0.01) were shorter compared to the femoral approach. Electrical parameters were similar between the two approaches. There were only two complications during jugular veinous implantations (1 pericardial effusion and 1 dislocation), compared to 16 complications using the femoral approach (1 pericardial effusion, 2 femoral artery injuries, and 13 major groin haematomas). CONCLUSION: The jugular approach may represent a safe and efficient alternative to femoral implantation of the Micra leadless pacemaker.

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.

Contexte: L'atteinte du système de conduction cardiaque est une complication courante du remplacement valvulaire aortique par cathéter (RVAC), une intervention habituellement pratiquée chez les patients âgés. Un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde peut être une option convenable pour cette population fragile, mais les données scientifiques actuelles concernant l'efficacité et l'innocuité de la stimulation sans sonde après un RVAC sont fragmentaires. Cette analyse visait à évaluer l'efficacité et l'innocuité de l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde chez des patients atteints de bradycardies pertinentes après un RVAC, comparativement à d'autres indications. Méthodologie: Des patients consécutifs ont été recrutés de manière rétrospective. Les données démographiques, les maladies cardiaques sous-jacentes, les paramètres interventionnels et les données de suivi ont été colligés. Résultats: Un total de 257 patients consécutifs qui se sont fait implanter un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde ont été inclus. Chez 26 patients, le dispositif a été implanté en raison d'une bradycardie après un RVAC (groupe RVAC), alors que les 231 autres patients formaient la population sans RVAC antérieur (groupe sans RVAC). La durée moyenne de l'intervention d'implantation (56 ± 22 minutes dans le groupe RVAC vs 48 ± 20 minutes dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = non significatif [NS]) et le taux de réussite de l'implantation (100 % dans le groupe RVAC vs 98,7 % dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = NS) étaient similaires dans les deux cohortes. Aucune différence significative n'a été observée dans les paramètres de stimulation (sensibilité, impédance et seuil, respectivement) entre les 2 groupes, que ce soit au moment de l'implantation ou pendant le suivi. Un total de 8 complications périopératoires majeures (3,1 % de l'ensemble des patients; 3,8 % dans le groupe RVAC vs 3,0 % dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = NS) sont survenues dans les 30 jours, sans différence notable entre les 2 groupes. Conclusions: L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde semble sûre et efficace après un RVAC; par conséquent, cette intervention représente une option convenable pour cette population souvent âgée et fragile.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With a Prior Conventional Pacing System.

Background: Leadless pacing has been established as an alternative approach to transvenous devices for selected patients. Often, leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation is a de novo procedure, but in an increasing number of patients, an LP is used after previous implantation of a conventional pacing system (CPS). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the efficacy and safety of LP implantation in the context of a previously implanted CPS, from 2 large Swiss centres. Results: A total of 257 consecutive patients undergoing LP implantation were included. They were divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 233 patients who did not have a previous CPS, and group 2 consisted of 24 patients with an in situ CPS. In group 2, a total of 20 patients (83%) required transvenous lead extraction due to infection, malfunction, or other reasons. In 3 patients with device-related infection, lead extraction and LP implantation was performed as a single procedure, whereas in the remaining 11 cases, a time window occurred between the 2 procedures (median: 11.5 days; range: 2-186 days). Electrical device parameters at implantation and during follow-up did not differ between the 2 groups (mean: 12.5 ± 9.3 months). Eight major periprocedural complications (3.1%) were encountered (4 pericardial effusions, 3 instances of femoral bleeding, and 1 instance of intra-abdominal bleeding) in the entire cohort within a 30-day period. No complications occurred in the group with a previous device. No infections were registered, even when complete extraction of an infected CPS was performed prior to LP implantation. Conclusions: Implantation of an LP in patients with a prior CPS (with or without extraction of the previous system) was effective and safe in our population of patients.

Contexte: La stimulation cardiaque sans fil a été établie comme une solution de substitution aux dispositifs transveineux chez certains patients. L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil est souvent une intervention de novo, mais chez un nombre croissant de patients, ce type de stimulateur est utilisé après l'implantation d'un stimulateur classique. Méthodologie: Une analyse rétrospective de l'efficacité et de l'innocuité de la stimulation cardiaque sans fil dans le contexte de l'implantation d'un stimulateur classique a été réalisée dans deux grands centres suisses. Résultats: Un total de 257 patients consécutifs ayant subi l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil ont été inclus. Les patients étaient répartis dans deux groupes; le groupe 1 était composé de 233 patients non porteurs d'un stimulateur classique, et le groupe 2, de 24 patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique in situ. Dans le groupe 2, 20 patients au total (83 %) ont eu besoin d'une extraction de la sonde transveineuse en raison d'une infection, d'un défaut de fonctionnement, ou pour d'autres motifs. Chez 3 patients présentant une infection liée au stimulateur, l'extraction de la sonde et l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil ont été réalisées simultanément, tandis que dans les 11 autres cas, il s'est écoulé un temps médian de 11,5 jours entre les deux interventions (min.-max. : 2-186 jours). Les paramètres relatifs au dispositif électrique au moment de l'implantation et pendant le suivi n'étaient pas différents entre les deux groupes (moyenne : 12,5 ± 9,3 mois). Huit complications périopératoires importantes (3,1 %) sont survenues (4 cas d'épanchement péricardique, 3 cas d'hémorragie fémorale et 1 cas d'hémorragie intra-abdominale) dans l'ensemble de la cohorte au cours d'une période de 30 jours. Aucune complication ne s'est produite dans le groupe de patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique. On n'a enregistré aucun cas d'infection, même lorsque l'extraction complète du stimulateur classique infecté a été effectuée avant l'implantation du stimulateur cardiaque sans fil. Conclusions: L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil chez les patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique (avec ou sans extraction de ce stimulateur) était une intervention efficace et sûre dans cette population de patients.

Five-year outcomes of different techniques for minimally invasive mitral valve repair in Barlow's disease.

OBJECTIVES: Barlow's disease is a specific sub-form of mitral valve (MV) disease, characterized by diffuse excessive tissue and multi segment prolapse. The anterolateral mini-thoracotomy represents the standard access for MV regurgitation in many centres. It still remains unclear which surgical technique provides the best results. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare operative safety and mid-term outcomes after (i) isolated annuloplasty, (ii) use of additional artificial chordae or (iii) leaflet resection in patients suffering from Barlow's disease undergoing minimally invasive MV repair. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients suffering from Barlow's disease undergoing minimally invasive MV surgery between 2001 and 2020 were analysed (n = 246). Patients were grouped and analysed according to the used surgical technique. The primary outcome was a modified Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium combined end-point of mortality, reoperation due to repair failure or reoccurrence of severe mitral regurgitation within 5 years. The secondary outcome included operative success and safety up to 30 days. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the 3 surgical techniques with regard to operative safety (P = 0.774). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (P = 0.244). Operative success was achieved in 93.5% and was lowest in the isolated annuloplasty group (77.1%). Conversion to MV replacement was increased in patients undergoing isolated annuloplasty (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated annuloplasty, use of additional artificial chordae and leaflet resection represent feasible techniques in Barlow patients undergoing minimally invasive MV surgery with comparable 5-year results. In view of the increased conversion rate in the annuloplasty group, the pathology should not be oversimplified.

Implantable cardiac monitors: artificial intelligence and signal processing reduce remote ECG review workload and preserve arrhythmia detection sensitivity.

Introduction: Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) provide long-term arrhythmia monitoring, but high rates of false detections increase the review burden. The new "SmartECG" algorithm filters false detections. Using large real-world data sets, we aimed to quantify the reduction in workload and any loss in sensitivity from this new algorithm. Methods: Patients with a BioMonitor IIIm and any device indication were included from three clinical projects. All subcutaneous ECGs (sECGs) transmitted via remote monitoring were classified by the algorithm as "true" or "false." We quantified the relative reduction in workload assuming "false" sECGs were ignored. The remote monitoring workload from five hospitals with established remote monitoring routines was evaluated. Loss in sensitivity was estimated by testing a sample of 2000 sECGs against a clinical board of three physicians. Results: Of our population of 368 patients, 42% had an indication for syncope or pre-syncope and 31% for cryptogenic stroke. Within 418.5 patient-years of follow-up, 143,096 remote monitoring transmissions contained 61,517 sECGs. SmartECG filtered 42.8% of all sECGs as "false," reducing the number per patient-year from 147 to 84. In five hospitals, nine trained reviewers inspected on average 105 sECGs per working hour. This results in an annual working time per patient of 83 min without SmartECG, and 48 min with SmartECG. The loss of sensitivity is estimated as 2.6%. In the majority of cases where true arrhythmias were rejected, SmartECG classified the same type of arrhythmia as "true" before or within 3 days of the falsely rejected sECG. Conclusion: SmartECG increases efficiency in long-term arrhythmia monitoring using ICMs. The reduction of workload by SmartECG is meaningful and the risk of missing a relevant arrhythmia due to incorrect filtering by the algorithm is limited.

Challenges and pitfalls during CRT implantation in patients with persistent left superior vena cava.

BACKGROUND: Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a rare venous anomaly, affecting 0.3-0.5% of the general population. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with PLSVC is challenging due to a complex anatomy. Moreover, data on CRT implantation in this patient population is scarce. Our aim was to report a series of patients with PLSVC and CRT implantation focusing on challenges and pitfalls. METHODS: Electronic medical databases on patients with CRT implantation at the University Heart Centers in Zurich, Switzerland, and Lübeck, Germany, were screened for individuals with a PLSVC. Clinical and demographic characteristics as well as procedural data were reported in all patients. RESULTS: This study presents six cases with a median age of 66 years. CRT implantation was successful in five patients, leading to a reduced QRS duration and improved left ventricular ejection fraction. Atrial fibrillation, ischemic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, and dilated cardiomyopathy were observed in this group as underlying conditions. Specialized tools, such as active fixation left ventricular leads, were utilized. One patient experienced major complications. CONCLUSIONS: This case series shows that although challenging, conventional endovascular CRT implantation is feasible in PLSVC patients. Specialized tools for visualization and fixation may help. Our experiences highlight the importance of preprocedural evaluation of the anatomy and precise intervention planning.

Electrocardiographic predictors of atrial mechanical sensing in leadless pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) capable of VDD pacing allow for atrioventricular synchrony through mechanical sensing of atrial contraction. However, mechanical sensing is less reliable and less predictable than electrical sensing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate P-wave amplitude during sinus rhythm from preoperative 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) as a predictor for atrial mechanical sensing in patients undergoing VDD LP implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing VDD LP implantation were included in this 2-center prospective cohort study. ECG parameters were evaluated separately and in combination for association with the signal amplitude of atrial mechanical contraction (A4). RESULTS: Eighty patients (median age 82 years; female 55%; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.8 kg/m2) were included in the study and 61 patients in the A4 signal analysis (19 patients in VVI mode during follow-up). Absolute (aVL, aVF, V1, V2) and BMI-adjusted (I, II, aVL, aVF, aVR, V1, V2) P-wave amplitudes from baseline ECGs demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation with A4 signal amplitude (all P <.05). A combined P-wave signal amplitude of at least 0.2 mV in V1 and aVL was predictive, with specificity of 83% (95% confidence interval 67%-100%) for A4 signal ≥1 m/s2. We found a significant correlation of A4 signal amplitude and overall atrioventricular synchrony (P = .013). CONCLUSION: P-wave amplitudes in ECG leads aVL and V1 can predict A4 signal amplitude in patients with VDD LP and therefore the probability of successful AV synchronous pacing.