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.

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.

Case Report: Stretching the limits-late valvuloplasty for THV dysfunction following redo mitral valve-in-valve implantation.

Late balloon valvuloplasty can be used to treat under-expansion-related transcatheter heart valve (THV) dysfunction. Whether this can be performed following redo-THV implantation is unknown. Herein, we report a case of a 72-year-old male presenting with symptomatic gradient elevation following redo mitral valve-in-valve implantation. The patient was successfully treated with late balloon valvuloplasty with gradient improvement. In conclusion, late valvuloplasty is effective even with several layers of valves. However, larger studies are required to clarify the role of this approach further.

Efficacy and Safety of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Octogenarians.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term complication rates in standard transvenous pacemakers are reported around 4-12% with a higher incidence in the elderly population. We report our experience in octogenarians undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation in two large-volume centers in Switzerland. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation at two Swiss large volume centers (University Hospital Zurich, Zurich and Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano) between October 2015 and March 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. Demographic information, clinical data, and procedural characteristics were recorded at the day of implantation and during follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty patients (mean age 80.6 ± 7.7 years, male 66%) were included. The main indication for pacemaker implantation was slow ventricular rate atrial fibrillation (111 of 220 patients, 50.4%). Out of the 220 patients, 124 (56.3%) were ≥80 years. Overall successful implantation rate was 98.6%. In the octogenarian population, the median procedure time (45 ± 20.2 min vs. 40 ± 19.6 min, p = 0.03) and radiation duration (6.1 ± 8.2 min vs. 5.0 ± 7.2 min, p = 0.03) were longer compared to patients <80 years. Major complications (2.7%, n = 6) and device measurements during follow-up were similar between patients ≥80 and <80 years. CONCLUSION: Implantation of a leadless pacemaker device in octogenarians is safe and effective with a similarly low complication rate compared to non-octogenarians.

Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of new permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR with self-expanding valves

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV). BACKGROUND: Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI. METHODS: This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI.

[Tricuspid regurgitation in 2023 : Where are we with the treatment of the forgotten valve?] / Insuffisance tricuspide en 2023 : modalités de traitement pour la valve oubliée.

The negative impact of tricuspid regurgitation on prognosis in now well established. It also appears clear that surgical and possibly percutaneous treatment should be performed before reaching a point of no return with advanced heart failure and deterioration of right ventricle function. Percutaneous treatment has been divided into coaptation restoration devices, annuloplasty devices, and ortho- or heterotopic valve replacement. The present article offers a brief review of diagnostic modalities beyond echocardiography, surgical treatment as well as of the multiple recent development in the percutaneous treatment of this frequent condition.

L'impact pronostique défavorable de l'insuffisance tricuspide (IT) est maintenant bien établi, ainsi que la nécessité d'intervenir chirurgicalement ou de manière percutanée lorsque le traitement médicamenteux est insuffisant. Des données récentes suggèrent par ailleurs qu'il est probablement judicieux d'intervenir avant qu'un stade trop avancé d'insuffisance cardiaque et d'atteinte du ventricule droit ne soit atteint. Le traitement percutané est divisé en dispositifs de restauration de la coaptation valvulaire, d'annuloplastie et de remplacement de valve ortho ou hétérotopique. Cet article propose une brève revue des modalités diagnostiques au-delà de l'échocardiographie, du traitement chirurgical ainsi que des multiples développements récents dans le traitement percutané de cette pathologie fréquente.

TAVI in 2022: Remaining issues and future direction.

Since the first-in-human procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a well-established therapeutic option for severe aortic stenosis, and is offered increasingly to patients at lower surgical risk, who are typically younger. Increasing lifespan carries concerns that "minor" complications that may have little impact in elderly patients could have a greater long-term impact in younger patients. Issues such as mild paravalvular regurgitation, hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, atrioventricular block with need for permanent pacemaker implantation or future coronary access may have a substantial cumulative undesirable impact. Additionally, as with surgical bioprosthetic valves, transcatheter bioprosthetic valves will eventually degenerate, and may require repeat intervention. Although durability data for transcatheter heart valves (THVs) is encouraging, very late data are lacking. Redo TAVI has been shown to be feasible with acceptable outcomes in patients with failed THVs, but in some patients, anatomical or device considerations may preclude a repeatable procedure because of the risk of coronary obstruction. Various strategies for lifetime management in this lower-risk and younger population have been proposed: surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) first, followed by TAVI; TAVI then SAVR; TAVI then TAVI, etc. A tailored approach may be considered according to patient co-morbidities, anatomy and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two therapies. This review offers an overview of current challenges when considering TAVI in populations at lower risk, and summarizes the different approaches that have been developed to address these concerns.

Left femoral venous access for leadless pacemaker implantation: patient characteristics and outcomes.

AIMS: Leadless pacing has become an alternative approach for patients requiring a single-chamber pacemaker. Conventionally, leadless Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS) pacemakers are implanted via a right femoral venous access. However, due to various reasons, a left-sided femoral venous approach may be necessary. We hypothesized that a left-sided femoral venous approach is as safe and effective when compared with a right-sided approach. We assessed indications, procedural characteristics, safety and mid-term outcomes of Micra TPS implantation via a left femoral venous approach when compared with the conventional right-sided approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective single-centre analysis, 143 consecutive patients undergoing Micra TPS implantation were included. 87% (125/143) underwent Micra TPS implantation via a right, and 13% (18/143) via a left femoral venous access. The mean age at implantation was 79.8 ± 7.5 years. Acute procedural success, mean procedure and fluoroscopy times as well as device parameters at implantation and follow-up (mean 15 ± 11.5 months) were similar between the two groups. Five major complications (3.5%) were encountered, all using a right-sided approach. After a transfemoral TAVI procedure, left femoral venous access was used in 42% of cases when compared with 8% in the remaining population (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A left femoral venous access for Micra TPS implantation is safe and effective with an excellent implantation success rate similar to a conventional right femoral venous access without longer implantation and fluoroscopy times. The most frequent reason for choosing left vs. right femoral venous access was a previous transfemoral TAVI procedure.