Search

A new technology, leadless pacemaker therapy, was recently introduced clinically to address lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker therapy. These leadless devices are self-contained right ventricular single-chamber pacemakers implanted by using a femoral percutaneous approach. In this review of available clinical data on leadless pacemakers, early results with leadless devices are compared with historical results with conventional single-chamber pacing. Both presently manufactured leadless pacemakers show similar complications, which are mostly related to the implant procedure: cardiac perforation, device dislocation, and femoral vascular access site complications. In comparison with conventional transvenous single-chamber pacemakers, slightly higher short-term complication rates have been observed: 4.8% for leadless pacemakers versus 4.1% for conventional pacemakers. The complication rate of the leadless pacemakers is influenced by the implanter learning curve for this new procedure. No long-term outcome data are yet available for the leadless pacemakers. Larger leadless pacing trials, with long-term follow-up and direct randomized comparison with conventional pacing systems, will be required to define the proper clinical role of these leadless systems. Although current leadless pacemakers are limited to right ventricular pacing, future advanced, communicating, multicomponent systems are expected to expand the potential benefits of leadless therapy to a larger patient population., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Aims: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP) are evolving technologies that do not require intracardiac leads. However, interactions between these two devices are unexplored. We investigated the feasibility, safety, and performance of combined LP and S-ICD therapy, considering (i) simultaneous device-programmer communication, (ii) S-ICD rhythm discrimination during LP communication and pacing, and (iii) post-shock LP performance., Methods and Results: The study consists of two parts. Animal experiments: Two sheep were implanted with both an S-ICD and LP (Nanostim, SJM), and the objectives above were tested. Human experience: Follow-up of one S-ICD patient with bilateral subclavian occlusion who received an LP and two LP (all Nanostim, SJM) patients (without S-ICD) who received electrical cardioversion (ECV) are presented. Animal experiments : Simultaneous device-programmer communication was successful, but LP-programmer communication telemetry was temporarily lost (2 ± 2 s) during ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction and 4/54 shocks. Leadless pacemaker communication and pacing did not interfere with S-ICD rhythm discrimination. Additionally, all VF episodes (n = 12/12), including during simultaneous LP pacing, were detected and treated by the S-ICD. Post-shock LP performance was unaltered, and no post-shock device resets or dislodgements were observed (24 S-ICD and 30 external shocks). Human experience : The S-ICD/LP patient showed adequate S-ICD sensing during intrinsic rhythm, nominal, and high-output LP pacing. Two LP patients (without S-ICD) received ECV during follow-up. No impact on performance or LP dislodgements were observed., Conclusion: Combined LP and S-ICD therapy appears feasible in all animal experiments (n = 2) and in one human subject. No interference in sensing and pacing during intrinsic and paced rhythm was noted in both animal and human subjects. However, induced arrhythmia testing was not performed in the patient. Defibrillation therapy did not seem to affect LP function. More data on safety and performance are needed., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: A leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) system was recently introduced to overcome lead-related complications of conventional pacing systems. To date, long-term results of an LCP system are unknown., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the complication incidence, electrical performance, and rate response characteristics within the first year of follow-up of patients implanted with an LCP., Methods: We retrospectively assessed intermediate-term follow-up data for 31 of 33 patients from the LEADLESS trial cohort who had an indication for single-chamber pacing and received an LCP between December 2012 and April 2013., Results: The mean age of the cohort was 76 ± 8 years, and 65% were male. Between 3 and 12 months of follow-up, there were no pacemaker-related adverse events reported. The pacing performance results at 6- and 12-month follow-up were, respectively, as follows: mean pacing threshold (at a 0.4-ms pulse width), 0.40 ± 0.26 V and 0.43 ± 0.30 V; R-wave amplitude 10.6 ± 2.6 mV and 10.3 ± 2.2 mV; and impedance 625 ± 205 Ω and 627 ± 209 Ω. At the 12-month follow-up in 61% of the patients (n = 19 of 31), the rate response sensor was activated, and an adequate rate response was observed in all patients., Conclusions: The LCP demonstrates very stable performance and reassuring safety results during intermediate-term follow-up. These results support the use of the LCP as a promising alternative to conventional pacemaker systems. Continued evaluation is warranted to further characterize this system. (Evaluation of a New Cardiac Pacemaker; NCT01700244)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conventional cardiac pacemakers are associated with several potential short- and long-term complications related to either the transvenous lead or subcutaneous pulse generator. We tested the safety and clinical performance of a novel, completely self-contained leadless cardiac pacemaker., Methods and Results: The primary safety end point was freedom from complications at 90 days. Secondary performance end points included implant success rate, implant time, and measures of device performance (pacing/sensing thresholds and rate-responsive performance). The mean age of the patient cohort (n=33) was 77±8 years, and 67% of the patients were male (n=22/33). The most common indication for cardiac pacing was permanent atrial fibrillation with atrioventricular block (n=22, 67%). The implant success rate was 97% (n=32). Five patients (15%) required the use of >1 leadless cardiac pacemaker during the procedure. One patient developed right ventricular perforation and cardiac tamponade during the implant procedure, and eventually died as the result of a stroke. The overall complication-free rate was 94% (31/33). After 3 months of follow-up, the measures of pacing performance (sensing, impedance, and pacing threshold) either improved or were stable within the accepted range., Conclusions: In a prospective nonrandomized study, a completely self-contained, single-chamber leadless cardiac pacemaker has shown to be safe and feasible. The absence of a transvenous lead and subcutaneous pulse generator could represent a paradigm shift in cardiac pacing., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01700244.