Impact of comorbidity on complication rates and life expectancy in patients with a leadless pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about impact of age and comorbidities on outcome in patients with leadless pacemakers (LPM) is limited. OBJECTIVES: To analyse outcome in LPM patients according to age and comorbidities. METHODS: This Swiss, multi-centre, retrospective analysis includes all patients with LPM implanted between 2015 and 2022. Charlson-Comorbidity-Index (CCI) was determined and patients were divided into a low- (CCI ≤ 5) and high- comorbidity (CCI > 5) group. Peri-procedural complications, in-hospital death, and all-cause mortalities were assessed. Finally, all-cause mortality according to three groups (CCI ≤ 3, 4-5, >5) was compared to age and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. RESULTS: 863 patients (median age 81 years, 65% male, 42% with CCI > 5) were included. Peri-procedural/long-term complication rates did not differ between the low- vs. high-comorbidity groups (2.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.48 and 1.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.12, respectively). In-hospital (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.002) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.9, 95%CI 2.2-3.8, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the high-comorbidity group resulting in a three-year mortality of 58% (95%CI 51-65%) vs. 22% (95%CI 17-27%) in the low-comorbidity group. In patients with a CCI ≤ 3, all-cause mortality was comparable to the age- and sex-adjusted mortality of the general Swiss population. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with high comorbidity, LPM implantation was not associated with increased peri-procedural/long-term complications. All-cause mortality in LPM patients with a CCI ≤ 3 was comparable to age- and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. Despite a relatively high three-year mortality due to competing risk factors, LPM implantation is safe, even in elderly patients with high comorbidity. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In this Swiss, multi-centre, retrospective cohort analysis, 863 patients implanted with a leadless pacemaker were included and divided into a high-comorbidity (with a CCI > 5) and low-comorbidity (with a CCI ≤ 5) group. There was no between group difference in terms of implantation outcomes and peri-operative or long-term complications. Furthermore, all-cause mortality during follow-up in patients with a CCI ≤ 3 was comparable to age- and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. These data indicate that LPM implantation is a safe procedure, even in elderly patients with high comorbidity.

Outcome of transvenous lead extraction in nonagenarians: A single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infections has increased. The incidence of TLE in nonagenarians is low, with limited reports outlining the outcomes of this procedure. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to clarify the outcomes of TLE in nonagenarians. METHODS: Patients with TLE treated at our hospital between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively examined; patient characteristics, device type, indications, procedures, complications, and clinical data of nonagenarians were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 12 patients with 24 leads (active fixation lead, n = 11; passive fixation lead, n = 13) who underwent TLE, the indication for TLE was infection (pocket infection, n = 8; sepsis, n = 4). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most frequently identified causative agent (n = 4). The median patient age was 91 years; five patients were female. The median lead dwell time was 9 years. Excimer laser sheath (16 leads), mechanical sheath (five leads), Evolution RL (one lead), and manual traction (two leads) were employed in TLE. The procedure was successful in all patients, and only one had a minor complication. Six patients required CIED re-implantation, and leadless pacemakers were selected for five patients. The 30-day mortality after TLE was 0%. CONCLUSION: TLE can be safely performed in nonagenarians. The decision to perform TLE should not be based on old age alone; the suitability of removing infected CIEDs should be determined based on each patient's condition.

Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers carry a risk of pocket- and lead-related complications in particular. To avoid these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs) have been developed, such as the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP). However, data on patient or centre characteristics related to the actual adoption of EVDs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world nationwide trends in EVD adoption in the Netherlands. METHODS: Using the Netherlands Heart Registration, all consecutive patients with a de novo S­ICD or conventional single-chamber ICD implantation between 2012-2020, or de novo LP or conventional single-chamber pacemaker implantation between 2014-2020 were included. Trends in adoption are described for various patient and centre characteristics. RESULT: From 2012-2020, 2190 S­ICDs and 10,683 conventional ICDs were implanted; from 2014-2020, 712 LPs and 11,103 conventional pacemakers were implanted. The general use has increased (S-ICDs 8 to 21%; LPs 1 to 8%), but this increase seems to have reached a plateau. S­ICD recipients were younger than conventional ICD recipients (p < 0.001) and more often female (p < 0.001); LP recipients were younger than conventional pacemaker recipients (p < 0.001) and more often male (p = 0.03). Both S­ICDs and LPs were mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery on-site, although over time S­ICDs were increasingly implanted in centres without cardiothoracic surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study demonstrated a relatively quick adoption of innovative EVDs with a plateau after approximately 4 years. S­ICD use is especially high in younger patients. EVDs are mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery back-up, but S­ICD use is expanding beyond those centres.

All the king's men (and women): Fluoro-less leadless pacemaker implant in a severely obese patient.

INTRODUCTION: Severe obesity presents significant challenges in imaging and delivery of therapy, including pacemaker implant. METHODS AND RESULT: We present our experience implanting a leadless pacemaker (LP) in a severely obese man presenting with heart block. We describe our multidisciplinary approach using right internal jugular venous access and transesophageal imaging in lieu of fluoroscopy which failed to provide workable images in this instance. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided LP placement may have wider application in the midst of an ongoing obesity epidemic where fluoroscopy imaging is both limited and unsafe.

Helix-fixation leadless pacemaker as a potential alternative to conventional transvenous pacemaker in post-Mustard baffle stenosis.

Obstruction of a systemic venous pathway is relatively common after the Mustard operation. A helix-fixation leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in the subpulmonic but morphologic LV in a d-TGA patient with post-Mustard baffle stenosis and failure of a previously implanted epicardial lead.

Wireless Device Therapy in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using the Combination of a Leadless Pacemaker and a Subcutaneous Defibrillator: A Report with 2-year Follow-up of Two Patients.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential tools in cardiology for tackling rhythm disturbances and have come a long way over the last decades. Technology is shifting toward leadless devices that spare the complications and limitations of traditional intravascular CIEDs. Herein, we report the simultaneous implantation of a leadless pacemaker (LP) and a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in two patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as their 2-year follow-up results, while explaining the preventive measures taken to steer around unwanted device interaction. Implantation of an S-ICD with an LP is reserved for unique cases but is a feasible approach when there is a contraindication for intravascular CIED implantation. Furthermore, this technique may be used in younger patients with cardiomyopathies in whom multiple generator replacements are expected, along with their known adverse effects.

Leadless pacemakers in patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease: Real-world data from the updated i-LEAPER registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on leadless pacemaker (LPM) outcomes according to different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the safety and efficacy of LPMs among patients stratified per different stages of renal function. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicenter international i-LEAPER registry (International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to CKD stage. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related major complication rate at implantation and during follow-up. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1748 patients enrolled, 33% were in CKD stage G3a/G3b and 9.4% were in CKD stage G4/G5. Patients with CKD presented cardiovascular comorbidities more frequently. During a median follow-up of 39 months (interquartile range [IQR] 18-59 months), major complication rate did not differ between groups (normal kidney function [NKF] group 1.8% vs CKD stage G3a/G3b group 2.9% vs CKD stage G4/G5 group 2.4%; P = .418). All-cause mortality resulted higher in the CKD stage G4/G5 group than in the NKF group (19.5% vs 9.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.9; 95% confidence interval 1.25-2.89; P = .003). LPM electrical performance was comparable between groups, except for patients with CKD who showed a slightly higher pacing threshold during 1-month follow-up (NKF group 0.50 V [IQR 0.35-0.70 V] vs G3a/G3b group 0.56 V [IQR 0.38-0.81 V] vs G4/G5 group 0.51 V [0.38-0.84 V] @ 0.24 ms; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, patients with advanced CKD who underwent LPM implantation were underrepresented. Although all-cause mortality was higher in end-stage CKD, periprocedural complications and LPM performance were overall comparable between NKF and different stages of CKD, except for higher values of pacing threshold in patients with CKD up to first-month follow-up.

Combined transcatheter vegetectomy and leadless pacemaker implantation for endocarditis and complete heart block.

We describe a case of culture-negative right-sided endocarditis for which simultaneous transcatheter vegetectomy was performed with leadless pacemaker implantation and removal of a temporary externalized pacing system. The patient did not have a recurrence of endocarditis highlighting the safety and efficacy of same-procedure vegetation removal and pacemaker implantation. This report documents a novel approach for the treatment of cardiac implantable electronic device-associated endocarditis in poor surgical candidates who are pacemaker-dependent.

Our patient had a large blood clot in the heart that might have been infected. We needed to remove the potentially infected blood clot as well as replace the patient's pacemaker as it might have been infected too. This case describes a new technique of removing a blood clot by suction as well as replacing the pacemaker during the same procedure.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes Between Leadless vs Transvenous Pacemakers Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited regarding the effectiveness of leadless pacemaker implantation for conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the national trends in the use of leadless pacemaker implantation following TAVR and compare its performance with transvenous pacemakers. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless or transvenous pacemakers following TAVR between 2017 and 2020 were included. Outcomes included in-hospital overall complications as well as midterm (up to 2 years) all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, infective endocarditis, and device-related complications. Propensity score overlap weighting analysis was used. RESULTS: A total of 10,338 patients (730 leadless vs 9,608 transvenous) were included. Between 2017 and 2020, there was a 3.5-fold increase in the proportion of leadless pacemakers implanted following TAVR. Leadless pacemaker recipients had more comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with leadless pacemakers experienced a lower rate of in-hospital overall complications compared with patients who received transvenous pacemakers (7.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.014). In the midterm, we found no significant differences in all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.96-1.32; P = 0.15), heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; P = 0.24), or infective endocarditis (subdistribution HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.44-2.17; P = 0.95) between the 2 groups, but leadless pacemakers were associated with a lower risk of device-related complications (subdistribution HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.21-0.64; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Leadless pacemakers are increasingly being used for conduction disturbance following TAVR and were associated with a lower rate of in-hospital complications and midterm device-related complications compared to transvenous pacemakers without a difference in midterm mortality.

Recurrent Pericardial Effusion Resulting From Right Ventricular Free Wall Injury Caused by Leadless Pacemaker Tines.

An 87-year-old man developed delayed cardiac tamponade 55 min after leadless pacemaker implantation and recurrent pericardial effusion 20 days later. Electrocardiogram-gated enhanced cardiac computed tomography revealed that the leadless pacemaker tines on the lateral side had penetrated the right ventricular free wall. He underwent off-pump hemostatic surgery.