Project description:BackgroundDuring the last decade, leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have turned into a prevalent alternative to traditional transvenous (TV) pacemakers; however, there is no consolidated data on LPM implantation in emergencies.MethodsDigital databases were searched for this review and four relevant studies, including 1276 patients were included in this review with procedure duration, fluoroscopic time, major complications, and mortality as primary outcomes and pacing threshold, impedance, sensing of LPM, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes.ResultsGonzales et al. and Marschall et al. showed the duration of the procedure to be 180 ± 45 versus 324.6 ± 92 and 39.9 ± 8.7 versus 54.9 ± 9.8, respectively. Zhang et al. demonstrated the duration of the procedure and fluoroscopy time to be 36 ± 13.4 and 11.1 ± 3.1, respectively. Similarly, Schiavone et al. exhibited intermediate times of implantation at 60 (45-80) versus 50 (40-65) and fluoroscopic times at 6.5 (5-9.7) versus 5.1 (3.1-9). Hospital stay was more with a temp-perm pacemaker as compared to LPM and pacing parameters were not significantly different in all the studies.ConclusionFor underlying arrhythmias, whenever appropriate, our review shows that LPMs may be a better option than temporary pacemakers, even as an urgent treatment.
Project description:BackgroundCongenital absence of superior vena cava (CASVC) is an extremely rare vascular anomaly often associated with conduction disturbances which makes implantation of a pacemaker difficult. We report a case of pacemaker implantation in a patient presenting with complete atrioventricular block (c-AVB) with bilateral absence of the SVC.Case summaryA 68-year-old man who had experienced dyspnoea on exertion by c-AVB was admitted to our hospital for treatment and management. Permanent pacemaker insertion was initially planned; however, an endocardial pacemaker lead could not be implanted in the right atrium. Computed tomography scan with contrast revealed that the venous blood from the upper half of the body flowed into the inferior vena cava via the azygos vein. Due to the difficulty of inserting an endocardial lead from the subclavian vein, a leadless pacemaker (LP) was implanted instead via the femoral vein.DiscussionThis is the first case of an LP implantation in a patient presenting with c-AVB with CASVC. Confirmation of blood vessel anatomy to rule out CASVC is necessary prior to pacemaker implantation when abnormal venous anatomy is suspected.
Project description:Leadless pacemaker implantation is recognized as safe and effective for treating bradycardia. However, there are limited descriptions of its use in patients with complex anatomical considerations. Here, we present a case detailing the successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker with a tortuous inferior vena cava and a narrow right atrium.
Project description:BackgroundThe complexity of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation varies widely. However, the predictive factors determining this difficulty are poorly understood.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors influencing LP implantation difficulty, specifically procedural time during right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) manipulation, based on patient background, cardiac function, and anatomic characteristics.MethodsAnalysis included LP implantation cases between 2017 and 2023, excluding the initial 3 implants performed by each operator. The relevance of patient background, cardiac function, and anatomic features on procedural and fluoroscopy times was evaluated.ResultsFifty-four patients (mean age 82.2 ± 10.0 years; 57.4% male) were included in the study. Median procedural and fluoroscopy time was 45.8 minutes and 16.0 minutes, respectively, with an average of 2.0 ± 1.4 device deployments. Univariate analysis showed associations between procedural time and older age, RA and RV diameter, and severity of tricuspid regurgitation (TR). After adjustment for physician and potential contributing factors, RV dilation (midventricular diameter ≥35 mm) and severe TR were identified as independent predictors of prolonged procedural time. Medical history exhibited no association with procedural time. Consistent results were observed in analyses using fluoroscopy time as the outcome.ConclusionRV dilation and severe TR were associated with prolonged procedural time for LP implantation. Anatomic features obtained from preprocedural echocardiography could provide valuable insights into both the safety and efficiency of LP implantation, thereby enhancing tailored treatment strategies for patients undergoing pacemaker implantation.
Project description:BackgroundA new intracardiac leadless pacemaker (ILP) has been developed to ensure atrioventricular (AV) synchrony (AVS) during ventricular pacing (VP). Recent studies have shown the feasibility and safety of accelerometer-based atrial sensing and an improvement in AVS among patients with atrioventricular block implanted with the Micra AV ILP (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). However, no data exists about the benefits of a VDD ILP in patients wearing a still working VVI Nanostim ILP (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA). We describe the feasibility of the procedure and the absence of device-related adverse events in the short-term follow-up.Case summaryWe present the case of a 72-year-old man implanted with a VVI ILP (Nanostim, St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) on May 2014, who has developed symptomatic high percentage of VVI asynchronous pacing and was treated with an upgrade to synchronous AV pacemaker (PM) ILP-Micra AV (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), which has improved symptoms and functional class.DiscussionIntracardiac leadless pacemakers represent the best current option for patients requiring PM implantation who are at high risk of infection and bleeding. Our case shows that the new AVS ILP is a good alternative to VVI ILP in patients with sinus rhythm and a strong need for VP.
Project description:PURPOSE:Use of novel medical technologies, such as leadless pacemaker (LP) therapy, may be subjected to a learning curve effect. The objective of the current study was to assess the impact of operators' experience on the occurrence of serious adverse device effects (SADE) and procedural efficiency. METHODS:Patients implanted with a Nanostim LP (Abbott, USA) within two prospective studies (i.e., LEADLESS ll IDE and Leadless Observational Study) were assessed. Patients were categorized into quartiles based on operator experience. Learning curve analysis included the comparison of SADE rates at 30 days post-implant per quartile and between patients in quartile 4 (>?10 implants) and patients in quartiles 1 through 3 (1-10 implants). Procedural efficiency was assessed based on procedure duration and repositioning attempts. RESULTS:Nanostim LP implant was performed in 1439 patients by 171 implanters at 60 centers in 10 countries. A total of 91 (6.4%) patients experienced a SADE in the first 30 days. SADE rates dropped from 7.4 to 4.5% (p =?0.038) after more than 10 implants per operator. Total procedure duration decreased from 30.9?± 19.1 min in quartile 1 to 21.6?± 13.2 min (p <?0.001) in quartile 4. The need for multiple repositionings during the LP procedure reduced in quartile 4 (14.8%), compared to quartiles 1 (26.8%; p <?0.001), 2 (26.6%; p <?0.001), and 3 (20.4%; p =?0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Learning curves exist for Nanostim LP implantation. Procedure efficiency improved with increased operator experience, according to a decrease in the incidence of SADE, procedure duration, and repositioning attempts.