INTRODUCTION: Leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) implantation using a transcatheter was recently developed to avoid pocket- and lead-related complications. Although a LCP has an active fixation mechanism using tines or a helix, LCP and lead dislodgement issues remain a major safety concern for patients. This article reviews the literature to determine the incidence of lead and LCP dislodgement. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 18 studies which included 17,321 patients undergoing conventional single- or dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and three studies which included 2,116 patients undergoing LCP device implantation were reviewed. The incidence of lead dislodgement ranged from 1% to 2.69% in individual studies with a mean of 1.63%, weighted mean of 1.71%, and median of 1.60 %. There was a relatively higher lead dislodgement rate between atrial and ventricular electrodes (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-6.70; P = 0.6; I2 = 0%), and between magnetic resonance imaging conditional and conventional leads (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.30-5.99; P = 0.16; I2 = 46%). The use of active fixation leads (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.66-1.70; P = 0.29; I2 = 20%) showed no significant difference in dislodgement risk compared to passive fixation leads. The incidence of LCP device dislodgement was 0%, 0.13%, and 1% in three leadless pacemaker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rates of conventional pacemaker lead dislodgement vary in individual studies with an overall high incidence. Use of the currently available LCP systems appears to result in a lower rate of device dislodgement. This may reflect the effectiveness of this novel technology and the fixation design of LCP devices.
INTRODUCTION:Leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) implantation using a transcatheter was recently developed to avoid pocket- and lead-related complications. Although a LCP has an active fixation mechanism using tines or a helix, LCP and lead dislodgement issues remain a major safety concern for patients. This article reviews the literature to determine the incidence of lead and LCP dislodgement. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 18 studies which included 17,321 patients undergoing conventional single- or dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and three studies which included 2,116 patients undergoing LCP device implantation were reviewed. The incidence of lead dislodgement ranged from 1% to 2.69% in individual studies with a mean of 1.63%, weighted mean of 1.71%, and median of 1.60 %. There was a relatively higher lead dislodgement rate between atrial and ventricular electrodes (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-6.70; P = 0.6; I2 = 0%), and between magnetic resonance imaging conditional and conventional leads (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.30-5.99; P = 0.16; I2 = 46%). The use of active fixation leads (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.66-1.70; P = 0.29; I2 = 20%) showed no significant difference in dislodgement risk compared to passive fixation leads. The incidence of LCP device dislodgement was 0%, 0.13%, and 1% in three leadless pacemaker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rates of conventional pacemaker lead dislodgement vary in individual studies with an overall high incidence. Use of the currently available LCP systems appears to result in a lower rate of device dislodgement. This may reflect the effectiveness of this novel technology and the fixation design of LCP devices.
Authors: C Steinwender; P Lercher; C Schukro; H Blessberger; G Prenner; M Andreas; J Kraus; M Ammer; M Stühlinger Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 1.900