Why the study?
Leadless pacemakers have shown resistance to infection after conventional system extraction, but rare infections can still occur.
This case demonstrates that retrieval of an infected leadless pacemaker is feasible 4 months post-implantation.
Clinicians should remain vigilant for leadless pacemaker infection in recurrent cases; this Level 5 report leaves open true incidence and risk stratification.
Leadless pacing systems are a viable alternative when extraction of an infected conventional pacing system is required. Leadless pacemakers have also shown resistance to infection even when inserted at the time of or shortly after conventional system extraction.1,2 Our case documents the rare occurrence of Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) infection in a patient with chronic recurrent transvenous device infection and the successful retrieval of this infected device 4 months after implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellison et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: