Back to Search
Start Over
Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker.
- Source :
-
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology [JACC Clin Electrophysiol] 2019 Feb; Vol. 5 (2), pp. 162-170. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Jan 30. - Publication Year :
- 2019
-
Abstract
- Objectives: This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.<br />Background: Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.<br />Methods: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized.<br />Results: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia.<br />Conclusions: Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118).<br /> (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Subjects :
- Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic complications
Kidney Failure, Chronic mortality
Kidney Failure, Chronic therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Implantation adverse effects
Prosthesis Implantation instrumentation
Prosthesis Implantation mortality
Prosthesis Implantation statistics & numerical data
Treatment Outcome
Arrhythmias, Cardiac complications
Arrhythmias, Cardiac mortality
Arrhythmias, Cardiac therapy
Pacemaker, Artificial adverse effects
Pacemaker, Artificial statistics & numerical data
Renal Dialysis
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2405-5018
- Volume :
- 5
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 30784685
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008