Factors influencing the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Prospective Survey.
Atrial fibrillation
European Heart Rhythm Association survey
Infection
Leadless pacing
Journal
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
ISSN: 1532-2092
Titre abrégé: Europace
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883649
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2020
01 04 2020
Historique:
received:
04
12
2019
accepted:
09
01
2020
pubmed:
22
1
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
22
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM. A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey using electronically distributed questionnaire sent to participating centres. Participating tertiary cardiac pacing centres prospectively included consecutive patients implanted between November 2018 and January 2019. Questions covered standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing LL-PM vs. TV-PM. Overall, 21 centres from four countries (France, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) participated, with eventual data from 798 patients (n = 472, 59% male). With 69 implants, LL-PM represented only 9% of all implants and 36% of the single-chamber pacing group; double-chamber transvenous pacemakers were implanted in 528 patients and biventricular (cardiac resynchronization pacemaker) in 79. The two major reasons reported in favour of LL-PM implantation were an anticipated high risk of infection or low rate of ventricular pacing. Compared to TV-PM, LL-PM patients were more often male (74% vs. 54%, P = 0.009), with greater proportion of valvular heart disease (45% vs. 35%, P = 0.01) and atrial fibrillation (AF; 65% vs. 23%, P < 0.0001), with significantly more comorbidities (≥ one comorbidity, 66% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). This contemporary multicentre European survey shows that LL-PM constitutes a small proportion of all PM implants. Patients implanted with LL-PM were more likely to have AF and a high anticipated risk of infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31960027
pii: 5710692
doi: 10.1093/europace/euz357
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
667-673Informations de copyright
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.