Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

View graph of relations Save citation

Authors

  • 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 units

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)

Request a copy

Request a copy

Francisco Leyva-Leon

Person

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)162-170
Number of pages9
JournalJACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume5
Issue number2
Early online date30 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Jan 2019

    Keywords

  • bradycardia, hemodialysis, leadless pacemaker, permanent pacemaker

Employable Graduates; Exploitable Research

Copy the text from this field...