Back to Search Start Over

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker.

Authors :
El-Chami MF
Clementy N
Garweg C
Omar R
Duray GZ
Gornick CC
Leyva F
Sagi V
Piccini JP
Soejima K
Stromberg K
Roberts PR
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.)

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