P6549Conventional single lead ventricular pacemaker against leadless pacemaker system in real-world patients: prospective one center study. CARDIOCHUS Registry

Abstract Background As more experience is obtained with leadless pacemakers systems (LPM), a great group of patients is considered for its implantation. There are issues that cannot be completely avoided with conventional transvenous pacemaker (VVI-PM) such as infectious or pocket related complications in which LPM are clearly superior. Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the clinical and device performance between LPM and VVIPM in the same period of time in a “real-world” population. Methods We performed a prospective, observational, one center study, including all patients with a single chamber pacemaker implantation within 3 years (June 2015-December 2018) and its mid-term follow-up. All clinical, electrical and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as implantation characteristics and complications, were described. Results We included a total of 339 patients with transvenous pacemakers, 195 patients with VVI-PM and 144 LPM. There were no significant differences in mortality between both groups during the follow-up (12,3±10 months), Figure 1. Although there were no significant differences in major complications (P-value 0,54), the number of total complications was lower in the LPM group (P-value 0,01) at the expense of fewer minor ones (P-value 0,02), Table 1. Table 1. Complications TVP (195) LPM (144) P value Major complications 11 (5.6%) 6 (4.2%) 0.54 Minor complications 10 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.01 Total Complications 21 (10.7%) 6 (4,2%) 0.02 Figure 1 Conclusions In our study, during the med-term follow-up, there were no significant differences in terms of mortality and the major complications between LMP and VVI-PM. Although, the number of minor complications were less with the LMP.