Key result
Micra leadless pacemaker implantation in critically ill patients was successful in 98% of cases, with a 5% peri-operative complication rate and no late (>30 days) device-related infections.
Why the study?
Temporary transvenous pacing carries a high risk of complications in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing, motivating an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of leadless pacemaker implantation.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation provide safe and effective pacing in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing?
Cohort (n=99)
Yes
Does leadless pacemaker implantation provide safe and effective pacing in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing?
Leadless pacemakers offer a safe and effective alternative to temporary transvenous pacing in critically ill ICU patients, demonstrating high implantation success and no late device-related infections.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support leadless pacing in critically ill patients; hypothesis-generating and leaves open need for randomized comparisons.
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: ≥1 supracaval central venous, or a ventilation tube, or intravenous antibiotic therapy for ongoing sepsis or bacteremia. Patients with a history of previous implantation of a pacemaker were excluded. Out of 1,016 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 peri-operative 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% peri-operative complication rate and no late (>30 days) device-related infections.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: