BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have been shown to have lower postoperative complications than traditional permanent pacemakers but there have been no studies on the outcomes of LPMs in patients with transcatheter heart valve replacements (THVRs). This study determined outcomes of LPMs compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (SCPs) post-THVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study including 10 patients who received LPMs post-THVR between February 2017 and August 2018 and a comparison group of 23 patients who received SCP post-THVR between July 2008 and August 2018. LPM or SCP was implanted at the discretion of electrophysiologists for atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response or sinus node dysfunction with need for single-chamber pacing only. RESULTS: LPMs were associated with decreased tricuspid regurgitation (P = 0.04) and decreased blood loss during implantation (7.5 ± 2.5 cc for LPMs vs 16.8 ± 3.2 cc for SCPs, P = 0.03). Five LPM patients had devices positioned in the right ventricular septum as seen on transthoracic echocardiogram. Frequency of ventricular pacing was similar between LPM and SCP groups. In the LPM group, one case was complicated by a pseudoaneurysm and one death was due to noncardiac causes. There was one pneumothorax and one pocket infection in the SCP group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study, LPMs were feasible post-THVR and found to perform as well as SCPs, had less intraprocedural blood loss, and were associated with less tricuspid regurgitation. Further, larger studies are required to follow longer-term outcomes and complications.
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have been shown to have lower postoperative complications than traditional permanent pacemakers but there have been no studies on the outcomes of LPMs in patients with transcatheter heart valve replacements (THVRs). This study determined outcomes of LPMs compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (SCPs) post-THVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study including 10 patients who received LPMs post-THVR between February 2017 and August 2018 and a comparison group of 23 patients who received SCP post-THVR between July 2008 and August 2018. LPM or SCP was implanted at the discretion of electrophysiologists for atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response or sinus node dysfunction with need for single-chamber pacing only. RESULTS: LPMs were associated with decreased tricuspid regurgitation (P = 0.04) and decreased blood loss during implantation (7.5 ± 2.5 cc for LPMs vs 16.8 ± 3.2 cc for SCPs, P = 0.03). Five LPMpatients had devices positioned in the right ventricular septum as seen on transthoracic echocardiogram. Frequency of ventricular pacing was similar between LPM and SCP groups. In the LPM group, one case was complicated by a pseudoaneurysm and one death was due to noncardiac causes. There was one pneumothorax and one pocket infection in the SCP group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study, LPMs were feasible post-THVR and found to perform as well as SCPs, had less intraprocedural blood loss, and were associated with less tricuspid regurgitation. Further, larger studies are required to follow longer-term outcomes and complications.
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; 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 Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Reinoud E Knops; Fleur V Y Tjong; Petr Neuzil; Johannes Sperzel; Marc A Miller; Jan Petru; Jaroslav Simon; Lucie Sediva; Joris R de Groot; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Jacob S Koruth; Arthur A M Wilde; Josef Kautzner; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marco Barbanti; Ronald K Binder; Danny Dvir; John Tan; Melanie Freeman; Christopher R Thompson; Anson Cheung; David A Wood; Jonathon Leipsic; John G Webb Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Erik O Udo; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Norbert M van Hemel; Carel C de Cock; Thijs Hendriks; Pieter A Doevendans; Karel G M Moons Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Grace Lin; Rick A Nishimura; Heidi M Connolly; Joseph A Dearani; Thoralf M Sundt; David L Hayes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-05-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Reinoud E Knops; Johannes Sperzel; Marc A Miller; Jan Petru; Jaroslav Simon; Lucie Sediva; Joris R de Groot; Fleur V Y Tjong; Peter Jacobson; Alan Ostrosff; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Jacob S Koruth; Arthur A M Wilde; Josef Kautzner; Petr Neuzil Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Justine M Ravaux; Michele Di Mauro; Kevin Vernooy; Arnoud W Van't Hof; Leo Veenstra; Suzanne Kats; Jos G Maessen; Roberto Lorusso Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2021-02-12