Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker
- PMID: 30784685
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008
Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker
Abstract
Objectives: This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.
Background: Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.
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.
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.
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).
Keywords: bradycardia; hemodialysis; leadless pacemaker; permanent pacemaker.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Leadless Pacing in Hemodialysis Patients.JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;5(2):171-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.01.006. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019. PMID: 30784686 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Development and validation of a risk score for predicting pericardial effusion in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.Europace. 2022 Jul 21;24(7):1119-1126. doi: 10.1093/europace/euab315. Europace. 2022. PMID: 35025987 Free PMC article.
-
Updated performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker in the real-world setting: A comparison to the investigational study and a transvenous historical control.Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec;15(12):1800-1807. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.08.005. Epub 2018 Aug 10. Heart Rhythm. 2018. PMID: 30103071 Clinical Trial.
-
Morbidity and mortality in patients precluded for transvenous pacemaker implantation: Experience with a leadless pacemaker.Heart Rhythm. 2020 Dec;17(12):2056-2063. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.07.035. Epub 2020 Aug 4. Heart Rhythm. 2020. PMID: 32763431 Clinical Trial.
-
The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future.Future Cardiol. 2023 Dec;19(15):735-746. doi: 10.2217/fca-2023-0093. Epub 2023 Dec 7. Future Cardiol. 2023. PMID: 38059460 Review.
-
Leadless cardiac pacemakers: present and the future.Curr Opin Cardiol. 2018 Jan;33(1):7-13. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000468. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2018. PMID: 29045345 Review.
Cited by
-
European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS).Europace. 2020 Apr 1;22(4):515-549. doi: 10.1093/europace/euz246. Europace. 2020. PMID: 31702000 Free PMC article.
-
Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.Europace. 2023 Mar 30;25(3):1041-1050. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad016. Europace. 2023. PMID: 36757859 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Brazilian Guidelines for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices - 2023.Arq Bras Cardiol. 2023 Jan 23;120(1):e20220892. doi: 10.36660/abc.20220892. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2023. PMID: 36700596 Free PMC article. English, Portuguese. No abstract available.
-
Development and validation of a risk score for predicting pericardial effusion in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.Europace. 2022 Jul 21;24(7):1119-1126. doi: 10.1093/europace/euab315. Europace. 2022. PMID: 35025987 Free PMC article.
-
Leadless Pacing: Current Status and Ongoing Developments.Micromachines (Basel). 2025 Jan 14;16(1):89. doi: 10.3390/mi16010089. Micromachines (Basel). 2025. PMID: 39858744 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical