Literature DB >> 32454218

Safety of leadless pacemaker implantation in the very elderly.

Eric Pagan1, James Gabriels2, Alexander Khodak3, David Chang2, Stuart Beldner2, Laurence M Epstein2, Jonathan Willner2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Micra leadless pacemaker (MLP) has proven to be an effective alternative to a traditional transvenous pacemaker (TVP). However, there has been concern about using the MLP in frail elderly patients because of the size of the implant sheath and perceived risk of perforation.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to report the safety of the MLP and compare MPLs with TVPs in the very elderly.
METHODS: All patients 85 years and older who received an MLP or a single-chamber TVP across 6 hospitals in the Northwell Health system from December 2015 to November 2019 were included. Demographic characteristics, procedural details, and procedure-related complications were reviewed.
RESULTS: Over 4 years, 564 patients underwent MLP implantation. During this time, 183 MLPs and 119 TVPs were implanted in patients 85 years and older. The mean age was 89.7 ± 3.4 years, and 47.4% were men. MLP implantation was successful in all but 3 patients (98.4% success rate). There was no difference in procedure-related complications (3.3% vs 5.9%; P = .276). Complications included 5 (2.7%) access site hematomas in the MLP group, 3 (2.5%) in the TVP group, 1 (0.5 vs 0.8%) pericardial effusion in each group, and 3 (2.5%) acute lead dislodgments (<24 hours) in the TVP group. MLP implantation resulted in a significantly shorter mean procedure time (35.7 ± 23.0 minutes vs 62.3 ± 31.5 minutes, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: In a large multicenter study of patients 85 years and older, MLP implantation (1) was successful in 98.4% of patients, (2) was safe with no difference in procedure-related complications compared to the TVP group, and (3) resulted in significantly shorter procedure times. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complication; Elderly; Implantation; Leadless pacemaker; Transvenous pacemaker

Year:  2020        PMID: 32454218     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.05.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  4 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy and safety of leadless pacemaker: A systematic review, pooled analysis and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Darlington; Philip Brown; Vanessa Carvalho; Hayley Bourne; Joseph Mayer; Nathan Jones; Vincent Walker; Shoaib Siddiqui; Ashish Patwala; Chun Shing Kwok
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2021-12-16

2.  Implantation of a leadless pacemaker in a patient with mechanical tricuspid valve.

Authors:  Jongmin Hwang; Seongwook Han; Hyoung-Seob Park; Cheol Hyun Lee; In-Cheol Kim; Woo Sung Jang
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2022-01-28

3.  Clinical outcome for heart failure hospitalizations in patients with leadless pacemaker.

Authors:  Tomonori Katsuki; Michio Nagashima; Hiroyuki Kono; Yohei Sadohara; Jun Hirokami; Rei Kuji; Kengo Korai; Masato Fukunaga; Kenichi Hiroshima; Kenji Ando
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2022-07-28

4.  Minimally invasive repair of iatrogenic right ventricular perforation guided by bedside contrast-enhanced ultrasound: A case report and literature review.

Authors:  Yanchun Zhao; Yucheng Lin; Zhiliang Hong; Baochun Lai; Lianghua Lian; Lin Chen; Qi Xie; Xiaofen Zhou; Songsong Wu
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-10-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.