Why the study?
Leadless pacemakers theoretically cause less mechanical interference with the tricuspid valve apparatus than transvenous leads, but data on tricuspid regurgitation after implantation remain sparse and conflicting.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation worsen tricuspid valve regurgitation in patients requiring pacing?
Does leadless pacemaker implantation worsen tricuspid valve regurgitation in patients requiring pacing?
Leadless pacemaker implantation is not associated with a significant change in tricuspid regurgitation severity, supporting its safety regarding tricuspid valve function.
Reassures on tricuspid valve safety with leadless pacemakers; extends pooled evidence favoring their use over transvenous leads.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional transvenous pacemaker leads may interfere with the tricuspid valve leaflets, tendinous chords, and papillary muscles, resulting in significant tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR). Leadless pacemakers (LLPMs) theoretically cause less mechanical interference with the tricuspid valve apparatus. However, data on TR after LLPM implantation are sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to investigate the prevalence of significant TR before and after LLPM implantation. METHODS: Patients who received a leadless LLPM (Micra™ TPS, Medtronic) between May 2016 and May 2021 at our center were included in this observational study if they had at least a pre- and postinterventional echocardiogram (TTE). The evolution of TR severity was assessed. Following a systematic literature review on TR evolution after implantation of a LLPM, data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 69 patients (median age 78 years [interquartile range (IQR) 72-84 years], 26% women). Follow-up duration between baseline and follow-up TTE was 11.4 months (IQR 3.5-20.1 months). At follow-up, overall TR severity was not different compared to baseline (p = .49). Six patients (9%) had new significant TR during follow-up after LLPM implantation, whereas TR severity improved in seven patients (10%). In the systematic review, we identified seven additional articles that investigated the prevalence of significant TR after LLPM implantation. The meta-analysis based on 297 patients failed to show a difference in significant TR before and after LLPM implantation (risk ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.53, p = .11). CONCLUSION: To date, there is no substantial evidence for a significant change in TR after implantation of a LLPM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haeberlin et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: