Single-Chamber Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From Campania Leadless Registry

Introduction: Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF. Materials and Methods: All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication. Results: A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan–Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41–2.16; p = 0.88]. Conclusion: Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

[1]  P. Roberts,et al.  Leadless Pacemaker Implant, Anticoagulation Status, and Outcomes: Results From The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry. , 2021, Heart rhythm.

[2]  I. Ranasinghe,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Leadless Pacemakers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis , 2021, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[3]  T. Potpara,et al.  Peri-procedural management, implantation feasibility, and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing implantation of leadless pacemakers: European Snapshot Survey. , 2020, 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.

[4]  T. Potpara,et al.  Factors influencing the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Prospective Survey. , 2020, 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.

[5]  L. Epstein,et al.  Atrioventricular synchronous pacing using a leadless ventricular pacemaker: Results from the MARVEL 2 study. , 2019, JACC. Clinical electrophysiology.

[6]  J. Hummel,et al.  Patient selection, pacing indications, and subsequent outcomes with de novo leadless single-chamber VVI pacing. , 2019, 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.

[7]  M. Gold,et al.  2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the evaluation and management of patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. , 2019, Heart rhythm.

[8]  M. Gold,et al.  2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  M. Gold,et al.  2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay. , 2019, Circulation.

[10]  A. Capucci,et al.  Factors influencing the use of subcutaneous or transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association prospective survey , 2018, 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.

[11]  Christopher R. Ellis,et al.  To retrieve, or not to retrieve: System revisions with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[12]  P. Roberts,et al.  A leadless pacemaker in the real-world setting: The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[13]  M. Link,et al.  2017 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline for the evaluation and management of patients with syncope: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[14]  C. Steinwender,et al.  Long-term performance of a transcatheter pacing system: 12-Month results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[15]  Josep Brugada,et al.  A Leadless Intracardiac Transcatheter Pacing System. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  C. Kennergren Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices Infections in High-Risk Patients. , 2015, Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review.

[17]  D. Metz,et al.  Risk factors for infection of implantable cardiac devices: data from a registry of 2496 patients. , 2013, 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.

[18]  A. Camm,et al.  Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  G. Lamas,et al.  Adverse Effect of Ventricular Pacing on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation Among Patients With Normal Baseline QRS Duration in a Clinical Trial of Pacemaker Therapy for Sinus Node Dysfunction , 2003, Circulation.

[20]  L. Goldman,et al.  Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.