Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients

  • Mikhael F. El-chami
  • , Nicolas Clementy
  • , Christophe Garweg
  • , Razali Omar
  • , Gabor Z. Duray
  • , Charles C. Gornick
  • , Francisco Leyva-Leon
  • , Venkata Sagi
  • , Jonathan P. Piccini
  • , Kyoko Soejima
  • , Kurt Stromberg
  • , Paul R. Roberts

    Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

    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)
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)162-170
    Number of pages9
    JournalJACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
    Volume5
    Issue number2
    Early online date30 Jan 2019
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 19 Feb 2019

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    Keywords

    • bradycardia
    • hemodialysis
    • leadless pacemaker
    • permanent pacemaker

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this