Key result
Ventricular leadless pacemaker implantation addresses the limitations of traditional epicardial and transvenous pacing systems in patients with single ventricle physiology.
Why the study?
Patients with single ventricle physiology often require pacing for arrhythmias and AV block, but traditional epicardial systems have high failure rates and transvenous systems pose access and thromboembolism concerns.
Case Report
Ventricular leadless pacemakers may offer an alternative to traditional epicardial or transvenous pacing systems in patients with single ventricle physiology.
May offer pacing alternative in single-ventricle patients; hypothesis-generating and leaves open long-term safety and efficacy.
Due to advances in congenital heart disease care, patients with single ventricle physiology (SVP) are living longer into adulthood. Arrhythmias and AV block requiring pacing are both common and poorly tolerated in these patients given their complex anatomy and physiology. Traditional epicardial pacing systems have been limited due to lead failure, infection, and premature battery depletion, while transvenous systems face access challenges and thromboembolism concerns in these relatively young patients (1).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lokesh et al. (2025) conducted a case report in Single ventricle physiology (SVP) with arrhythmias and AV block. Ventricular leadless pacemaker implantation was evaluated. Ventricular leadless pacemaker implantation addresses the limitations of traditional epicardial and transvenous pacing systems in patients with single ventricle physiology.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: