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

This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation. Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis. Patients on hemodialysi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JACC. Clinical electrophysiology 2019-02, Vol.5 (2), p.162-170
Hauptverfasser: El-Chami, Mikhael F, Clementy, Nicolas, Garweg, Christophe, Omar, Razali, Duray, Gabor Z, Gornick, Charles C, Leyva, Francisco, Sagi, Venkata, Piccini, Jonathan P, Soejima, Kyoko, Stromberg, Kurt, Roberts, Paul R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation. Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis. 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. 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. 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).
ISSN:2405-5018
DOI:10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008