Tawseef Dar1, Krishna Akella2, Ghulam Murtaza2, Sharan Sharma3, Muhammad R Afzal4, Rakesh Gopinathannair2, Ralph Augostini5, John Hummel4, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy6. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (KCHRI) ,Overland Park Regional Medical Center, HCA MidWest, 12200, W 106th street, Overland Park, KS, 662215, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, Garden City Hospital, Garden City, MI, USA. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (KCHRI) ,Overland Park Regional Medical Center, HCA MidWest, 12200, W 106th street, Overland Park, KS, 662215, USA. dlakkireddy@kchri.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leadless pacemaker (LP) extraction is a relatively new field with limited operator experience. We sought to report a comparison of retrieval process for Nanostim vs Micra transcatheter LPs. METHODS: The list of retrievals for the Micra transcatheter pacemaker system (TPS) was obtained from Medtronic whereas Nanostim data was obtained from centers that participated in the Leadless II study. Details of retrieval such as indication, days post implantation, complications, and post procedure device management were obtained from the manufacturer database for each site, and any missing details were obtained from individual operators. Extractions performed on the same day were labeled as "Early" and thereafter were labeled as "Late." RESULTS: A total of 113 retrievals were attempted (73 in Nanostim and 40 in Micra TPS). The most common reasons for retrieval were battery advisory and inadequate pacing threshold (n = 16) for Nanostim and Micra, respectively. Success rate in Nanostim group was around 90% (66/73) compared with 100% in Micra group (p = 0.049). Late retrieval occurred in 50% of Micra TPS cases (20/40) compared with 100% of Nanostim LP cases. Median time to extraction was 46 days for Micra TPS and 256 days for Nanostim LP (p < 0.001). Rate of serious adverse events with Nanostim extraction was 3% (n = 2/73). CONCLUSION: Overall, LP extraction is feasible and safe to perform irrespective of the duration and type of the device.
PURPOSE: Leadless pacemaker (LP) extraction is a relatively new field with limited operator experience. We sought to report a comparison of retrieval process for Nanostim vs Micra transcatheter LPs. METHODS: The list of retrievals for the Micra transcatheter pacemaker system (TPS) was obtained from Medtronic whereas Nanostim data was obtained from centers that participated in the Leadless II study. Details of retrieval such as indication, days post implantation, complications, and post procedure device management were obtained from the manufacturer database for each site, and any missing details were obtained from individual operators. Extractions performed on the same day were labeled as "Early" and thereafter were labeled as "Late." RESULTS: A total of 113 retrievals were attempted (73 in Nanostim and 40 in Micra TPS). The most common reasons for retrieval were battery advisory and inadequate pacing threshold (n = 16) for Nanostim and Micra, respectively. Success rate in Nanostim group was around 90% (66/73) compared with 100% in Micra group (p = 0.049). Late retrieval occurred in 50% of Micra TPS cases (20/40) compared with 100% of Nanostim LP cases. Median time to extraction was 46 days for Micra TPS and 256 days for Nanostim LP (p < 0.001). Rate of serious adverse events with Nanostim extraction was 3% (n = 2/73). CONCLUSION: Overall, LP extraction is feasible and safe to perform irrespective of the duration and type of the device.
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: Paul R Roberts; Nicolas Clementy; Faisal Al Samadi; Christophe Garweg; Jose Luis Martinez-Sande; Saverio Iacopino; Jens Brock Johansen; Xavier Vinolas Prat; Robert C Kowal; Didier Klug; Lluis Mont; Jan Steffel; Shelby Li; Dirk Van Osch; Mikhael F El-Chami Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Muhammad R Afzal; Emile G Daoud; Ryan Cunnane; Shiva K Mulpuru; Alan Koay; Azlan Hussain; Razali Omar; Koh Kok Wei; Anish Amin; Gregory Kidwell; Nirav Patel; Charles Love; Michael Lloyd; Maciej Sterliński; Seth Goldbarg; Miguel A Leal; James Gabriels; Apoor Patel; Ram Jadonath; Eric Grubman; George Crossley; Chris Pepper; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Toshimasa Okabe; John D Hummel; Ralph S Augostini Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Marc A Miller; Reinoud E Knops; Petr Neuzil; Pascal Defaye; Werner Jung; Rahul Doshi; Mark Castellani; Adam Strickberger; R Hardwin Mead; Harish Doppalapudi; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Matthew Bennett; Johannes Sperzel Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2016-12
Authors: Jacob S Koruth; Marian K Rippy; Alexander Khairkhahan; David A Ligon; Christopher A Hubbard; Marc A Miller; Srinivas Dukkipati; Petr Neuzil; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-10-22