Key result
Micra leadless pacemaker proves feasible in pediatric patients, with zero late complications through ~22 months.
Why the study?
Conventional transvenous and epicardial pacemaker systems in pediatrics carry complications related to lead distortion from growth and activity, as well as lead and pocket issues.
Is leadless pacemaker implantation feasible and safe in pediatric patients?
Observational (n=11)
No
Is leadless pacemaker implantation feasible and safe in pediatric patients?
Leadless pacemaker implantation and early retrieval are feasible in pediatric patients, potentially avoiding complications associated with conventional transvenous and epicardial systems.
Hypothesis-generating for leadless pacemakers in children; prospective comparative studies required before routine use.
In pediatrics, conventional transvenous and epicardial pacemaker systems carry complications, such as lead distortion due to growth and activity, in addition to lead and pocket complications. A retrospective review of pediatric leadless pacing at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital (MN, USA) from 2018 through 2021 was performed. Diagnoses, rationale for pacing, demographics, pacing thresholds and longevity of devices were recorded. Twelve leadless pacemaker insertions and one removal were performed successfully in patients weighing 19-90 kg. Six patients had Micra implantation via the internal jugular vein without surgical cut-down. Up to 3 years of follow-up were noted, with median follow-up of 22 months. No late complications occurred. Leadless pacemaker implantation and early retrieval were feasible in pediatric patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El‐Bokl et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Pediatric patients requiring pacing (n=11). Micra Leadless Pacemaker Implantation was evaluated on Late complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: