Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar;32(3):832-841.
doi: 10.1111/jce.14881. Epub 2021 Jan 23.

Leadless pacemaker implant with concomitant atrioventricular node ablation: Experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker

Mikhael F El-Chami  1 , Timothy Shinn  2 , Sundeep Bansal  3 , Jose L Martinez-Sande  4 , Nicolas Clementy  5 , Ralph Augostini  6 , Bipin Ravindran  2 , Venkata Sagi  7 , Hemanth Ramanna  8 , Christophe Garweg  9 , Paul R Roberts  10 , Kyoko Soejima  11 , Kurt Stromberg  12 , Dedra H Fagan  12 , Nicky Zuniga  12 , Jonathan P Piccini  13
Affiliations

Leadless pacemaker implant with concomitant atrioventricular node ablation: Experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker

Mikhael F El-Chami et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA.

Methods: Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post-Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow-up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow-up period.

Results: A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co-morbid conditions compared with non-AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow-up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non-AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p < .001). The risk of major complications through 36-months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33-6.23, p < .001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions.

Conclusion: Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536118 NCT02488681 NCT02004873.

Keywords: AV node ablation; Micra; leadless pacemaker.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maximum weekly pacing capture thresholds in patients with concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation following implant procedure. Mean pacing capture thresholds standardized to a pulse duration of 0.24 ms. Gray shaded area represents 10th–90th percentile intervals. N values represent the number of patients with data available at each timepoint
Figure 2
Figure 2
Electrical performance over time by concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation status. (A) Pacing capture thresholds standardized to a pulse duration of 0.24 ms. (B) Impedance. Error bars represent the standard deviation. n values represent the number of patients with data available at each timepoint
Figure 3
Figure 3
Major complication rates through 36‐months postimplant for patients with and without concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation. (A) Unadjusted (univariate) comparison. (B) Comparison adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics using overlap weights. HR = hazard ratio from Cox model. CI = confidence interval
Figure 4
Figure 4
System revision rates for any reason through 36‐months postimplant for patients with and without concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation. (A) Unadjusted (univariate) comparison. (B) Comparison adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics using overlap weights. HR = hazard ratio from Cox model. CI = confidence interval
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lee SH, Chen SA, Tai CT, et al. Comparisons of quality of life and cardiac performance after complete atrioventricular junction ablation and atrioventricular junction modification in patients with medically refractory atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(3):637‐644. - PubMed
    1. Kay GN, Ellenbogen KA, Giudici M, et al. The Ablate and Pace Trial: a prospective study of catheter ablation of the AV conduction system and permanent pacemaker implantation for treatment of atrial fibrillation. APT Investigators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1998;2(2):121‐135. - PubMed
    1. Hoffmayer KS, Scheinman M. Current role of atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36(2):257‐265. - PubMed
    1. Kuck KH, Brugada J, Fürnkranz A, et al. Cryoballoon or radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2235‐2245. - PubMed
    1. Cantillon DJ, Exner DV, Badie N, et al. Complications and health care costs associated with transvenous cardiac pacemakers in a nationwide assessment. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3(11):1296‐1305. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data