Key result
Micra leadless pacemaker implantation in critically ill patients was successful in 98% of cases, with a 5% perioperative complication rate and no late device-related infections.
Why the study?
Temporary transvenous pacing carries a high complication risk in critically ill patients needing prolonged pacing, leaving the safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers unclear.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation provide a safe and effective alternative for prolonged cardiac pacing in critically ill patients?
Cohort (n=99)
Yes
Does leadless pacemaker implantation provide a safe and effective alternative for prolonged cardiac pacing in critically ill patients?
Leadless pacemakers are a feasible and safe alternative to temporary transvenous pacing in critically ill patients, with a high success rate and no late infection complications.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports feasibility in critically ill patients; leaves open need for prospective trials to guide practice.
BACKGROUND: Temporary transvenous pacing in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing is associated with a high risk of complications. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of self-contained intracardiac leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients implanted with a Micra LPM during the hospitalization in an intensive care unit were retrospectively included. Inclusion criteria were: more than or equal to 1 supracaval central venous line, or a ventilation tube, or intravenous antibiotic therapy for ongoing sepsis or bacteremia. Patients with a history of the previous implantation of a pacemaker were excluded. Out of 1016 patients implanted with an LPM, 99 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 75 years and Charlson comorbidity index 7. LPM implantation was successfully performed in 98% of cases, with a perioperative complication rate of 5%, mainly cardiac injuries. In-hospital mortality rate was 6%. No late (>30 days) device-related complication occurred, especially no infection. CONCLUSIONS: LPM appears as an acceptable alternative to conventional temporary transvenous pacing in selected critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing, especially regarding the risk of infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clémenty et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing (n=99). Micra leadless pacemaker (LPM) was evaluated on successful implantation. Micra leadless pacemaker implantation in critically ill patients was successful in 98% of cases, with a 5% perioperative complication rate and no late device-related infections.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: