Initial implantation experience and short-term follow-up results of implanting leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20200305-00160
- Author:
Jing LIANG
1
;
Ying Xin ZHAO
1
;
Dong Mei SHI
1
;
Yue Ping LI
1
;
Yi YU
1
;
Xiao Han XU
1
;
Ping An PENG
1
;
Miao YU
1
;
Ya Feng WU
1
;
Tie Nan SUN
1
;
Yu Jie ZHOU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
- Publication Type:Observational Study
- Keywords:
Arrhythmia;
Bradycardia;
Leadless pacemaker;
Pacemaker implantation
- MeSH:
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Equipment Design;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Male;
Pacemaker, Artificial;
Prospective Studies;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2020;48(10):866-870
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To explore the utility and safety of leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. Methods: The study was a prospective observational study. Patients underwent Micra transcatheter pacing system in Beijing Anzhen hospital from December 2019 to January 2020 were enrolled. The baseline characteristics, platelet count, hemoglobin, anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy, mean procedural time, average fluoroscopy time, number of deployment and electrical parameters (threshold, R-wave amplitude, impedance) were recorded. Ultrasonography of bilateral femoral and iliac veins was performed in all patients. Patients were followed including access site complication, adverse event and device evaluation at implant, hospital discharge, 1 and 3 months post-implant. R-wave≥5 mV, impedance between 400 and 1 500 Ω and threshold increase≤1.5 V than implant is considered a stable parameter. Femoral access site complications included hematoma, hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula. Adverse events included dislodgement, cardiac effusion/perforation and infection. Left ventricular end diastolic diameter and ejection fraction before and at 1 month after implant were reported. Results: Five patients were enrolled and pacemaker implantation was successful in all 5 patients. Patients were all males and the average age was (78.4±8.4) years. 2 patients received aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, 1 patient suffered from anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 1 patient. No stenosis, occlusion and vascular malformation of bilateral femoral and iliac veins was observed. The mean implant time was (39.6±1.7) minutes. The average fluoroscopy time was (9.2±1.3) minutes and the number of deployment was (1.40±0.55). Electrical parameters(threshold, R-Wave amplitude and impedance) were as follows: (0.40±0.10) V/0.24 ms, (10.80±3.72) mV and (822.00±162.23) Ω at implant; (0.45±0.07) V/0.24 ms, (13.04±2.41) mV, and (748.0±91.5) Ω at discharge, (0.40±0.06) V/0.24 ms, (14.26±4.11) mV, and (700.0±91.7) Ω at 1 month post-implant and (0.39±0.05) V/0.24 ms, 14.40±3.97 mV, and (682.0±96.0) Ω at 3 months post-implant, respectively. Threshold increase was ≤1.5 V compared to that during implantation, electrical parameters were acceptable and stable. There was no difference in LVEDD [(44.00±5.24) mm vs. (44.00±5.34) mm,P=1.000] and EF [(62.00±3.39)% vs. (62.20±3.56)%, P=0.861] before and 1 month post-implant. No incidence of access site complications, cardiac effusion/perforation, dislodgment or infections occurred during the 3 months. Conclusions: The leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation performed in our study archived a high implant success rate and favorable safety profile as well as associated with low and stable pacing thresholds. The long-term safety and benefit of leadless pacemaker need to be evaluated in future clinical studies.
