Literature DB >> 26321198

Percutaneous Implantation of an Entirely Intracardiac Leadless Pacemaker.

Vivek Y Reddy1, Derek V Exner, Daniel J Cantillon, Rahul Doshi, T Jared Bunch, Gery F Tomassoni, Paul A Friedman, N A Mark Estes, John Ip, Imran Niazi, Kenneth Plunkitt, Rajesh Banker, James Porterfield, James E Ip, Srinivas R Dukkipati.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac pacemakers are limited by device-related complications, notably infection and problems related to pacemaker leads. We studied a miniaturized, fully self-contained leadless pacemaker that is nonsurgically implanted in the right ventricle with the use of a catheter.
METHODS: In this multicenter study, we implanted an active-fixation leadless cardiac pacemaker in patients who required permanent single-chamber ventricular pacing. The primary efficacy end point was both an acceptable pacing threshold (≤2.0 V at 0.4 msec) and an acceptable sensing amplitude (R wave ≥5.0 mV, or a value equal to or greater than the value at implantation) through 6 months. The primary safety end point was freedom from device-related serious adverse events through 6 months. In this ongoing study, the prespecified analysis of the primary end points was performed on data from the first 300 patients who completed 6 months of follow-up (primary cohort). The rates of the efficacy end point and safety end point were compared with performance goals (based on historical data) of 85% and 86%, respectively. Additional outcomes were assessed in all 526 patients who were enrolled as of June 2015 (the total cohort).
RESULTS: The leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in 504 of the 526 patients in the total cohort (95.8%). The intention-to-treat primary efficacy end point was met in 270 of the 300 patients in the primary cohort (90.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0 to 93.2, P=0.007), and the primary safety end point was met in 280 of the 300 patients (93.3%; 95% CI, 89.9 to 95.9; P<0.001). At 6 months, device-related serious adverse events were observed in 6.7% of the patients; events included device dislodgement with percutaneous retrieval (in 1.7%), cardiac perforation (in 1.3%), and pacing-threshold elevation requiring percutaneous retrieval and device replacement (in 1.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: The leadless cardiac pacemaker met prespecified pacing and sensing requirements in the large majority of patients. Device-related serious adverse events occurred in approximately 1 in 15 patients. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; LEADLESS II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030418.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26321198     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  88 in total

1.  Device therapy: Leadless pacemaker demonstrates safety, efficacy, and retrievability.

Authors:  Robert Phillips
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  An Itchy Lead: First Reported Case of Ventricular Pacemaker Lead Self-Extraction.

Authors:  Brent Klinkhammer; Mevan Wijetunga; Yassar Almanaseer
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2018-08-31

3.  A Novel Defibrillation Tool: Percutaneously Delivered, Partially Insulated Epicardial Defibrillation.

Authors:  Ammar M Killu; Niyada Naksuk; Zdeněk Stárek; Christopher V DeSimone; Faisal F Syed; Prakriti Gaba; Jiří Wolf; Frantisek Lehar; Martin Pesl; Pavel Leinveber; Michal Crha; Dorothy Ladewig; Joanne Powers; Scott Suddendorf; David O Hodge; Gaurav Satam; Miroslav Novák; Tomas Kara; Charles J Bruce; Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-07

4.  Single- and dual-site ventricular pacing entirely through the coronary sinus for patients with prior tricuspid valve surgery.

Authors:  Chin C Lee; Khuyen Do; Sati Patel; Steven K Carlson; Tomas Konecny; Philip M Chang; Rahul N Doshi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 5.  Electromagnetic interference between implantable cardiac devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a review.

Authors:  Jonathan S Gordon; Elizabeth J Maynes; Thomas J O'Malley; Behzad B Pavri; Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 6.  Lead or be led: an update on leadless cardiac devices for general physicians.

Authors:  Benedict M Wiles; Paul R Roberts
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 7.  Current developments in cardiac rhythm management devices.

Authors:  Philipp Halbfass; Kai Sonne; Karin Nentwich; Elena Ene; Thomas Deneke
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 5.460

8.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy with wireless left ventricular endocardial pacing: is this the direction to go?

Authors:  Tomas Holubec; Julius Beckers; Zdenka Holubcova; Veronika Walter; Thomas Walther
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-08

Review 9.  Arrhythmias in Patients ≥80 Years of Age: Pathophysiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Anne B Curtis; Roshan Karki; Alexander Hattoum; Umesh C Sharma
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 10.  Pacing Without Wires: Leadless Cardiac Pacing.

Authors:  Michael L Bernard
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2016
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.