Why the study?
Is the retrieval of leadless cardiac pacemakers feasible and safe in patients who require device removal?
Is the retrieval of leadless cardiac pacemakers feasible and safe in patients who require device removal?
Retrieval of chronically implanted single-chamber active fixation leadless pacemakers is highly feasible and safe, with a 94% overall success rate and no 30-day procedure-related adverse events.
Supports retrieval feasibility in this small cohort; leaves open need for larger prospective studies before wider adoption.
BACKGROUND: Leadless cardiac pacemakers have emerged as a safe and effective alternative to conventional transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemakers. Herein, we report a multicenter experience on the feasibility and safety of acute retrieval (<6 weeks) and chronic retrieval (>6 weeks) of the leadless cardiac pacemaker in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included patients enrolled in 3 multicenter trials, who received a leadless cardiac pacemaker implant and who subsequently underwent a device removal attempt. The overall leadless pacemaker retrieval success rate was 94%: for patients whose leadless cardiac pacemaker had been implanted for <6 weeks (acute retrieval cohort), complete retrieval was achieved in 100% (n=5/5); for those implanted for ≥ 6 weeks (chronic retrieval cohort), retrieval was achieved in 91% (n=10/11) of patients. The mean duration of time from implant to retrieval attempt was 346 days (range, 88-1188 days) in the chronic retrieval cohort, and nearly two thirds (n=7; 63%) had been implanted for >6 months before the retrieval attempt. There were no procedure-related adverse events at 30 days post retrieval procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter experience demonstrated the feasibility and safety of retrieving a chronically implanted single-chamber (right ventricle) active fixation leadless pacemaker. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT02051972, NCT02030418, and NCT01700244.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reddy et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: