A Modular Communicative Leadless Pacing-Defibrillator System.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICD cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing is safe remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 86%. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 88%) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 80%). RESULTS: We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1±12.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemaker-related major complications was 97.5%, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.4%) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3%, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.9%); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.).

Atrioventricular Synchrony Delivered by a Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker System.

BACKGROUND: A dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system has been designed for atrioventricular synchronous pacing using wireless, beat-to-beat, implant-to-implant (i2i) communication between distinct atrial and ventricular leadless pacemakers. The atrioventricular synchrony achieved across various ambulatory scenarios has yet to be systematically evaluated. METHODS: A prospective, single-arm, unblinded, multicenter, international clinical trial of the leadless pacemaker system was conducted in patients with a conventional dual-chamber pacing indication enrolled from February 2022 to March 2023. Leadless pacemaker systems were implanted, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiographic recordings were collected 3 months after implantation over various postures/activities: sitting, supine, left lateral recumbent, right lateral recumbent, standing, normal walk, and fast walk. An independent Holter core laboratory performed a manual adjudication of the percent of atrioventricular synchronous beats using the standard 300-millisecond PR interval limit. Atrium-to-ventricle and ventricle-to-atrium i2i communication success rates were also assessed. Post hoc summary statistics describing the relationships between atrioventricular synchrony and i2i success, posture/activity, implantation indication, atrioventricular event, and heart rate were calculated. RESULTS: In the evaluable population (n=384 of 464 enrolled [83%]; 61% male; age, 70 years; weight, 82 kg; 60% ejection fraction; 95% of beats evaluable), the mean atrioventricular synchrony of 98% of beats observed across all postures using the standard 300-millisecond limit was greater than both atrial-to-ventricular i2i (94%) and ventricular-to-atrial i2i (94%; P<0.001), exceeding both i2i values in 95% of patients. Atrioventricular synchrony was achieved in >95% of evaluable beats across all postures/activities, implantation indications, atrioventricular paced/sensed event combinations, and heart rate ranges (including >100 bpm). CONCLUSIONS: This dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system demonstrated atrioventricular synchrony in 98% of evaluable beats at 3 months after implantation. Atrioventricular synchrony was maintained across postures/activities and remained robust for heart rates >100 bpm.

Revolutionizing Atrial Fibrillation Treatment: The Robotic Convergent Plus Procedure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely accepted to be the most common sustained arrhythmia, with an increasing incidence over time. This is thought to be due to the aging population across the world. AF occurs when abnormal electrical foci result in disorganization of atrial depolarization, though the exact pathophysiology leading to these abnormal foci is not well understood. A range of interventions exist for AF - pharmacological therapies (anti-arrhythmic or negative chronotropic medications), cardioversion, or ablations to interrupt the abnormal conduction pathways. Ablation may be via a catheter-based approach, via a surgical approach using the "Maze" procedure (Cox-Maze IV), or more recently, via a hybrid approach. This first involves a surgical epicardial ablation, with catheter-based endocardial ablation following a few weeks later to ensure durable transmural lesion sets via the "Convergent" procedure. We describe the use of the Da Vinci Xi™ robotic platform to improve the procedure, allowing continuous and improved visualization of the anatomy without the need for potentially harmful retraction of the atrial appendage or the back of the left atrium, as well as increased precision with our mapping tools and more complete ablation. Here, we highlight the advantages over a non-robotic (subxiphoid) Convergent procedure, while outlining the key operative steps in undertaking the "Robotic Convergent Plus" procedure using the Da Vinci Xi™ robotic surgical system.

Six-month electrical performance of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: The first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker (DC-LP) system consists of 2 separate atrial and ventricular devices that communicate to maintain synchronous atrioventricular pacing and sensing. The initial safety and efficacy were previously reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the chronic electrical performance of the DC-LP system. METHODS: Patients meeting standard dual-chamber pacing indications were enrolled and implanted with the DC-LP system (Aveir DR, Abbott), including right atrial and ventricular helix-fixation LPs (atrial leadless pacemaker [ALP], ventricular leadless pacemaker [VLP]). Pacing capture threshold, sensed amplitude, and pacing impedance were collected using the device programmer at prespecified timepoints from 0-6 months postimplant. RESULTS: De novo devices were successfully implanted in 381 patients with complete 6-month data (62% male; age 69 ± 14 years; weight 82 ± 20 kg; 65% sinus nodal dysfunction, 30% atrioventricular block). ALPs were implanted predominantly in the right atrial appendage anterior base and VLPs primarily at the mid-to-apical right ventricular septum. From implant to 1 month, pacing capture thresholds (0.4-ms pulse width) improved in both ALPs (2.4 ± 1.5 V to 0.8 ± 0.8 V; P <.001) and VLPs (0.8 ± 0.6 V to 0.6 ± 0.4 V; P <.001). Sensed amplitudes improved in both ALPs (1.8 ± 1.3 mV to 3.4 ± 1.9 mV; P <.001) and VLPs (8.8 ± 4.0 mV to 11.7 ± 4.2 mV; P <.001). Impedances were stable in ALPs (334 ± 68 Ω to 329 ± 52 Ω; P = .17) and reduced in VLPs (789 ± 351 Ω to 646 ± 190 Ω; P <.001). Electrical measurements remained relatively stable from 1-6 months postimplant. No differences in electrical metrics were observed among ALP or VLP implant locations. CONCLUSION: This first in-human evaluation of the new dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system demonstrated reliable electrical performance throughout the initial 6-month evaluation period.