Clinical outcomes and predictors of complications in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers have emerged as a viable alternative for traditional transvenous pacemakers to reduce the risk of device-related complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the real-world clinical outcomes and complications associated with the implantation of leadless pacemaker devices. METHODS: Using the National Readmission Database (NRD), we examined patient demographics, and in-hospital and 30-day procedural outcomes after leadless pacemaker implantation from 2016-2018. Our cohort comprised adults (≥18 years) with an ICD-10 procedural code for leadless pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: Our cohort included a total of 7821 patients who underwent leadless pacemaker implantation. Overall immediate procedure-related complications, as defined broadly in this study, occurred in 7.5% of patients. Pericardial effusion without the need for pericardiocentesis occurred in 1.9% of patients, with pericardiocentesis performed in 1.0%. Vascular complications occurred in 2.3% of patients; 0.33% required repair, and device dislodgment occurred in 0.51%. The most significant predictor for procedural complications was end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.32; P = .004), congestive heart failure (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; P = .04), and coagulopathy (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.34-2.34; P <.001). All-cause readmission occurred in 17.9% of patients within 30 days from device implant, with 1.36% of readmissions being procedure related. At 30 days postimplant and after discharge, 0.25% of patients needed a new pacemaker, and 0.18% had pericardial complications. CONCLUSION: In our large real-life cohort, we found the rate of serious complications after leadless pacemaker implantation to be relatively low and comparable to prior studies in a high-risk population with multiple comorbid conditions.

Grade I traumatic aortic injury progression.

This case highlights the importance of diagnosing Grade I aortic injuries after trauma. Although the prognosis for minimal aortic injury is typically quite good, the patient in this case suffered the unlikely complication of minimal intimal injury progression with resultant thromboembolism and massive stroke. Due to motion artifact and CT resolution limitations, the initial aortic injury was not detected. Thus, potentially life-saving measures such as serial CT monitoring of injury, blood pressure control, and endovascular repair were unable to be performed. This is a demonstration of the unfortunate complications of minimal aortic injury.