Leadless Cardiac Pacing: New Horizons (original) (raw)
Related papers
State of the art of leadless pacing
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2015
Despite undisputable benefits, conventional pacemaker therapy is associated with specific complications related to the subcutaneous device and the transvenous leads. Recently, two miniaturized leadless pacemakers, Nanostim™ (St. Jude Medical) and Micra™ (Medtronic), which can be completely implanted inside the right ventricle using steerable delivery systems, entered clinical application. The WiCS™-cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) system (wireless cardiac stimulation for CRT, EBR Systems) delivers leadless left ventricular endocardial stimulation for cardiac resynchronization. In addition to obvious cosmetic benefits, leadless pacing systems may have the potential to overcome some complications of conventional pacing. However, acute and long-term complications still remains to be determined, as well as the feasibility of device explantation years after device placement.
Leadless pacemakers – The path to safer pacing?
Indian Heart Journal
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Leadless Pacing: The Future is not Here Yet!
Despite great technical advances over the last decades, cardiac pacing is still associated with a significant rate of complications mostly ascribed to the pacing leads. 1 Leads are susceptible to mechanical stress, whether transvenous or epicardial, and constitute the pacing component most prone to failure; they are the major contributor to complications, may cause vascular obstruction, and other late complications, such as mechanical failure and infection, whereby extraction is required with its attendant dire consequences. Implantation of a pacemaker in young patients exposes them to high risk of subsequent lead complications, and when failed leads are replaced without extraction, the presence of multiple endocardial leads may cause major vascular morbidity. New devices for biventricular or bifocal pacing to effect cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) incorporating 3 leads are associated with even more problems. Hence, there came about a resurge of interest in the technology of leadless pacing.
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review, 2011
Pacemaker technologies have advanced dramatically over the decades since they were first introduced, and every year many thousands of new implants are performed worldwide. However, there continues to be a high incidence of acute and chronic complications, most of which are linked to the lead or the surgical pocket created to hold the device. A leadless pacemaker offers the possibility of bypassing these complications, but requires a catheter-based delivery system and a means of retrieval at the end of the device’s life, as well as a way of repositioning to achieve satisfactory pacing thresholds and R waves, a communication system and low peak energy requirements. A completely self-contained leadless pacemaker has recently been developed, and its key characteristics are discussed, along with the results of an efficacy and safety trial in an animal model. The results of the LEADLESS study, the first human trial to look at safety and feasibility of the leadless device, are discussed an...
Percutaneous Implantation of an Entirely Intracardiac Leadless Pacemaker
New England Journal of Medicine, 2015
BACKGROUND Cardiac pacemakers are limited by device-related complications, notably infection and problems related to pacemaker leads. We studied a miniaturized, fully self-contained leadless pacemaker that is nonsurgically implanted in the right ventricle with the use of a catheter. METHODS In this multicenter study, we implanted an active-fixation leadless cardiac pacemaker in patients who required permanent single-chamber ventricular pacing. The primary efficacy end point was both an acceptable pacing threshold (≤2.0 V at 0.4 msec) and an acceptable sensing amplitude (R wave ≥5.0 mV, or a value equal to or greater than the value at implantation) through 6 months. The primary safety end point was freedom from device-related serious adverse events through 6 months. In this ongoing study, the prespecified analysis of the primary end points was performed on data from the first 300 patients who completed 6 months of follow-up (primary cohort). The rates of the efficacy end point and safety end point were compared with performance goals (based on historical data) of 85% and 86%, respectively. Additional outcomes were assessed in all 526 patients who were enrolled as of June 2015 (the total cohort). RESULTS The leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in 504 of the 526 patients in the total cohort (95.8%). The intention-to-treat primary efficacy end point was met in 270 of the 300 patients in the primary cohort (90.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0 to 93.2, P = 0.007), and the primary safety end point was met in 280 of the 300 patients (93.3%; 95% CI, 89.9 to 95.9; P<0.001). At 6 months, device-related serious adverse events were observed in 6.7% of the patients; events included device dislodgement with percutaneous retrieval (in 1.7%), cardiac perforation (in 1.3%), and pacing-threshold elevation requiring percutaneous retrieval and device replacement (in 1.3%). CONCLUSIONS The leadless cardiac pacemaker met prespecified pacing and sensing requirements in the large majority of patients. Device-related serious adverse events occurred in approximately 1 in 15 patients. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; LEADLESS II ClinicalTrials .gov number, NCT02030418.
Bridging the future of cardiac stimulation: physiologic or leadless pacing?
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2022
Cardiac simulation has moved from early life-saving pacemakers meant only to prevent asystole to current devices capable of physiologic stimulation for the treatment of heart rhythm and heart failure, that are also intended for remote patient and disease-progression monitoring. The actual vision of contemporary pacing aims to correct the electrophysiologic roots of mechanical inefficiency regardless of underlying structural heart diseases. The awareness of the residual cardiac dyssynchrony related to customary cardiac pacing has changed the concept of what truly represents "physiologic pacing". On a different perspective, leadless stimulation to abolish CIED surgery and prevent lead-related complications is becoming a priority both for young device recipients and for frail, elderly patients. Careful clinical evaluation attempts to bridge decision-making to patient-tailored therapy.
Early performance of a miniaturized leadless cardiac pacemaker: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study
European heart journal, 2015
Permanent cardiac pacing is the only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia, but complications associated with conventional transvenous pacing systems are commonly related to the pacing lead and pocket. We describe the early performance of a novel self-contained miniaturized pacemaker. Patients having Class I or II indication for VVI pacing underwent implantation of a Micra transcatheter pacing system, from the femoral vein and fixated in the right ventricle using four protractible nitinol tines. Prespecified objectives were >85% freedom from unanticipated serious adverse device events (safety) and <2 V 3-month mean pacing capture threshold at 0.24 ms pulse width (efficacy). Patients were implanted (n = 140) from 23 centres in 11 countries (61% male, age 77.0 ± 10.2 years) for atrioventricular block (66%) or sinus node dysfunction (29%) indications. During mean follow-up of 1.9 ± 1.8 months, the safety endpoint was met with no unanticipated serious adverse device even...