Leadless pacemaker implant with concomitant atrioventricular node ablation: Experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.
AV node ablation
Micra
leadless pacemaker
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
26
10
2020
revised:
19
12
2020
accepted:
02
01
2021
pubmed:
12
1
2021
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
11
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA. Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post-Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow-up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow-up period. A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co-morbid conditions compared with non-AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow-up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non-AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p < .001). The risk of major complications through 36-months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33-6.23, p < .001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions. Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA.
METHODS
Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post-Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow-up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow-up period.
RESULTS
A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co-morbid conditions compared with non-AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow-up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non-AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p < .001). The risk of major complications through 36-months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33-6.23, p < .001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions.
CONCLUSION
Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33428248
doi: 10.1111/jce.14881
pmc: PMC7986103
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02536118', 'NCT02488681', 'NCT02004873']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
832-841Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Mar;32(3):832-841
pubmed: 33428248
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Mar 1;31(3):637-44
pubmed: 9502647
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 11;374(6):533-41
pubmed: 26551877
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Nov;41(11):1484-1490
pubmed: 30221378
Heart Rhythm. 2017 May;14(5):702-709
pubmed: 28192207
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 25;368(17):1585-93
pubmed: 23614585
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Nov;3(11):1296-1305
pubmed: 29759627
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1998 Jun;2(2):121-35
pubmed: 9870004
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Sep;14(9):1375-1379
pubmed: 28502871
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 May;41(5):504-510
pubmed: 29476660
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec;15(12):1800-1807
pubmed: 30103071
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Apr;31(4):868-874
pubmed: 31967367
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Jul;15(7):994-1000
pubmed: 29496606
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013 Feb;36(2):257-65
pubmed: 23078186
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 30;374(26):2604-5
pubmed: 27355552
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 9;374(23):2235-45
pubmed: 27042964
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):286-292
pubmed: 31724791
N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373(12):1125-35
pubmed: 26321198
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 20;74(7):932-987
pubmed: 30412710