Project description:Transvenous pacemakers may lead to wound site complications, such as hematomas and infections. Leadless pacemakers have eliminated these risks. However, when the central venous and/or cardiac anatomy are challenging, their implantation technique may require modification(s). Here, we discuss 3 cases of successful leadless pacemaker implantation in patients with a challenging anatomy. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

| S-EPMC10401061 | biostudies-literature

Leadless pacemaker implantation in a patient with congenital azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava.

Project description:In case of venous route abnormality during a leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation, it can be challenging if we still performed via the predesigned femoral vein. We report a patient with normal preoperative laboratory and image results, but azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava (IVC) was suspected during the procedure. Then, we decided to change the implantation strategy, the LP implantation was successfully performed via right jugular vein instead of the classical IVC route. Finally, venous computed tomography (CT) angiography was conducted to testify such venous developmental abnormality. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

| S-EPMC11783746 | biostudies-literature

A case of leadless-to-leadless pacemaker interaction.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10285148 | biostudies-literature

Leadless Pacemaker Pitfalls: Navigating Implantation and Postprocedure Challenges.

Project description:BackgroundLeadless pacemakers (LPs) are implanted into the right ventricular septum, eliminating intravascular complications associated with traditional pacemakers. They attach to the myocardium using 4 curved, self-expanding nitinol tines.Case summaryOur case highlights the rare occurrence of LP dislodgement into the pulmonary artery and the delayed development of a traumatic right ventricular apical pseudoaneurysm.DiscussionLPs were designed to reduce the lead- and pocket-related complications that can be seen with conventional pacemakers. However, LPs carry a risk of dislodgement and embolization into the pulmonary artery compared with conventional pacemakers.Take-home messagesThis case explores the complexities and risks involved in both the implantation and retrieval of LPs in high-risk patient populations and highlights the importance of meticulous technique in retrieving an acutely embolized LP from the right PA.

| S-EPMC11911882 | biostudies-literature

Transfemoral leadless pacemaker implantation after transcatheter tricuspid valve in ring implantation.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10808522 | biostudies-literature

Leadless pacemaker implantation and azygos continuation in the inferior vena cava: a case description.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10102739 | biostudies-literature

Complete radiation-free, transthoracic echocardiography-guided, leadless pacemaker implantation.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC11890092 | biostudies-literature

Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.

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.

| S-EPMC10646376 | biostudies-literature

A case of successful salvage despite right ventricular perforation during AVEIR VR leadless pacemaker implantation.

Project description:To prevent cardiac tamponade caused by catheter tip slippage during the retraction of the protective sleeve in Aveir VR implantation, it is crucial to carefully evaluate not only the bulge of the protective sleeve but also the shape of the system's shaft using fluoroscopic imaging.

| S-EPMC11757284 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data