Implantation of a leadless pacemaker in young adults

Abstract

Aims Leadless pacing has emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers to mitigate the risks of pocket‐ and lead‐related complications but its use remains controversial in young adults mostly because experience in this patient population is limited. We sought to examine the feasibility and safety of implanting leadless single chamber pacemakers in young adults. Methods This multicenter, retrospective, observational study sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and electrical performance of the Micra VR Transcatheter Pacemaker System (Medtronic) in patients between 18 and 40 years who underwent implantation of a leadless pacemaker for any indication at the university medical centers of Bordeaux, Clermont‐Ferrand, Toulouse, and Tours (France), between 2015 and 2021. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from system‐related or procedure‐related major complications at 6 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the combination of a low (≤2 V) and stable (increase within 1.5 V) pacing capture threshold at 6 months. Results Leadless pacemaker implantation was successful in all 35 patients. At 6 months, safety endpoint was met for 35 (100%) and efficacy endpoint for 34 (97%) patients. During a follow‐up of 26 ± 15 months (range: 6–60 months), Safety endpoint remained 100% and efficacy endpoint was 94%. Leadless pacemaker retrieval was not required in any patient. Approximately one‐third of patients (n = 13, 37%) had >40% ventricular pacing burdens at 1 year, including all 10 patients with a complete AV block but also 3 patients with normal AV conduction during implantation. One patient reported symptoms of pacemaker syndrome which was confirmed using Holter recording and successfully treated using reprogramming. Conclusion In this observational study, leadless pacemakers demonstrated favorable short‐ and intermediate‐term safety and effectiveness in young adults.

Infection remediation after septic device extractions: analysis of three treatment strategies including a 1-year follow-up

“…Especially in younger pacemaker-dependent patients, leadless pacemaker implantation might provide an alternative treatment strategy. Good short-and mid-term results of LP implantation have been shown in younger patients in two previously published studies (34,35). However, long-term outcomes need to be awaited and indications for leadless pacing need to be taken carefully into consideration.…”

The Use of Electrocardiogram Smartwatches in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices

“…Leadless pacemakers offer an alternative to conventional transvenous pacing systems, particularly for patients at an increased risk of infection or with limited venous access [ 39 ]. The Micra (Medtronic) wireless pacemaker is mostly implanted in patients who do not need ventricular tracking of the atrial rhythm, for example, patients with permanent fibrillation.…”

Optimizing atrioventricular synchrony in young adults implanted with leadless pacemakers

“…Allowing for more 'physiological' activation, MicraTM AV leadless pacemakers may offer benefits that are particularly appealing for young adults, including reduced physical restrictions, improved cosmesis, preservation of venous access, and elimination of the risks of pocket erosions and lead fractures [5].…”