TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker implantation following transvenous lead extraction in high-volume referral centers
T2 - real-world data from a large international registry
AU - Mitacchione, Gianfranco
AU - Schiavone, Marco
AU - Gasperetti, Alessio
AU - Arabia, Gianmarco
AU - Breitenstein, Alexander
AU - Cerini, Manuel
AU - Palmisano, Pietro
AU - Montemerlo, Elisabetta
AU - Ziacchi, Matteo
AU - Gulletta, Simone
AU - Salghetti, Francesca
AU - Russo, Giulia
AU - Monaco, Cinzia
AU - Mazzone, Patrizio
AU - Hofer, Daniel
AU - Tundo, Fabrizio
AU - Rovaris, Giovanni
AU - Dello Russo, Antonio
AU - Biffi, Mauro
AU - Pisanò, Ennio C L
AU - Chierchia, Gian Battista
AU - Della Bella, Paolo
AU - de Asmundis, Carlo
AU - Saguner, Ardan M
AU - Tondo, Claudio
AU - Forleo, Giovanni B
AU - Antonio, Curnis
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding Sources: This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Heart Rhythm Society
Copyright:
Copyright 2023 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - BACKGROUND: Limited data on the real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPMs) post-transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are available.OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of LPMs following TLE in comparison with LPMs de novo implantation.METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LPM implantation in 12 European centers joining the International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry were enrolled. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related complication rate at implantation and during follow-up (FU) between groups. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes.RESULTS: Of the 1179 patients enrolled, 15.6% underwent a previous TLE. During a median FU of 33 (interquartile range 24-47) months, LPM-related major complications and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups (TLE group: 1.6% and 5.4% vs de novo group: 2.2% and 7.8%; P = .785 and P = .288, respectively). Pacing threshold (PT) was higher in the TLE group at implantation and during FU, with very high PT (>2 V@0.24 ms) patients being more represented than in the de novo implantation group (5.4% vs 1.6 %; P = .004). When the LPM was deployed at a different right ventricular (RV) location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted, a lower proportion of high PT (>1-2 V@0.24 ms) patients at implantation, 1-month FU, and 12-month FU (5.9% vs 18.2%, P = .012; 3.4% vs 12.9%, P = .026; and 4.3% vs 14.5%, P = .037, respectively) was found.CONCLUSION: LPMs showed a satisfactory safety and efficacy profile after TLE. Better electrical parameters were obtained when LPMs were implanted at a different RV location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted.
AB - BACKGROUND: Limited data on the real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPMs) post-transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are available.OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of LPMs following TLE in comparison with LPMs de novo implantation.METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LPM implantation in 12 European centers joining the International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry were enrolled. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related complication rate at implantation and during follow-up (FU) between groups. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes.RESULTS: Of the 1179 patients enrolled, 15.6% underwent a previous TLE. During a median FU of 33 (interquartile range 24-47) months, LPM-related major complications and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups (TLE group: 1.6% and 5.4% vs de novo group: 2.2% and 7.8%; P = .785 and P = .288, respectively). Pacing threshold (PT) was higher in the TLE group at implantation and during FU, with very high PT (>2 V@0.24 ms) patients being more represented than in the de novo implantation group (5.4% vs 1.6 %; P = .004). When the LPM was deployed at a different right ventricular (RV) location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted, a lower proportion of high PT (>1-2 V@0.24 ms) patients at implantation, 1-month FU, and 12-month FU (5.9% vs 18.2%, P = .012; 3.4% vs 12.9%, P = .026; and 4.3% vs 14.5%, P = .037, respectively) was found.CONCLUSION: LPMs showed a satisfactory safety and efficacy profile after TLE. Better electrical parameters were obtained when LPMs were implanted at a different RV location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted.
KW - CIED
KW - Micra
KW - device-related complications
KW - leadless pacemaker
KW - transvenous lead extraction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85145998312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.002
DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 36496135
VL - 20
SP - 395
EP - 404
JO - Heart Rhythm
JF - Heart Rhythm
SN - 1547-5271
IS - 3
ER -