Leadless pacing in the elderly: never too old for something new.

Rates of cardiac pacemaker implantation rise with age, and, meanwhile, elderly patient may be at great risk of complications, as pneumothorax, lead perforation, or pocket dehiscence. The use of leadless pacemaker could overcome peri- and post-procedural complications related to the presence of transvenous leads and pocket. The study aims to investigate feasibility and outcomes of Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (M-TPS) implantation in elderly, which represents a challenge for conventional cardiac pacing. Between May 2014 and July 2019, 109 patients (88 males, mean age 77.71±9.68 years) underwent M-TPS implantation at our Center, targeting a non-apical site of delivery when feasible. Study population was divided into two groups according to age (group 1 <79 years vs group 2 group 2 ≥80 years). The outcome evaluation included electrical performance at hospital discharge, and during follow-up. In 46/109 cases (34 males, 73.91%) M-TPS was implanted in patients older than 80 years. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for demographics characteristics, except for age. The procedure was performed via the right femoral access in 102/109 cases and was successful in all cases, with no device-related events. No differences were observed between groups in procedure duration, single device delivery, electrical performance at implant and at 12 month F-U. MTP-S implant is an effective and safe procedure in elderly patients, with similar electrical performance and outcome compared with younger patients at mid-term follow-up.

Comparison between leadless and transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy in a referral centre for lead extraction.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the long-term clinical and electrical performance of Micra leadless pacemaker with transvenous single-chamber pacemaker (TV-VVI PM) in a high-volume centre for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). METHODS: One-hundred patients (group 1) undergoing Micra implant were matched with 100 patients undergoing TV-VVI PM implant (group 2) by age, sex, left ventricular systolic ejection fraction and previous TLE. RESULTS: The implant procedure was successful in all patients. In group 1, the procedure duration was lower than in group 2 (43.86 ± 22.38 vs 58.38 ± 17.85 min, p < 0.001), while the fluoroscopy time was longer (12.25 ± 6.84 vs 5.32 ± 4.42 min, p < 0.001). There was no difference about the rate of septal implant at the right ventricle (76% vs 86%, p = 0.10). Patients were followed-up for a median of 12 months. No acute and chronic procedure-related complication was observed in group 1, while we reported acute complications in seven patients (7%, p = 0.02) and long-term complications in three patients (3%, p = 0.24), needing for a system revision in 6 cases (6%, p = 0.038), in group 2. One systemic infection occurred in TV-VVI PM group. Electrical measurements were stable during follow-up in both groups, with a longer estimated battery life in group 1 (mean delivered energy at threshold at discharge: 0.14 ± 0.21 vs 0.26 ± 0.22 µJ, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Micra pacemaker implant is a safe and effective procedure, with a lower rate of acute complications and system revisions compared with TV-VVI PM, even in a real-life setting including patients who underwent TLE.