Leadless pacing systems offer potential cosmetic benefits and may overcome conventional pacing complications, though long-term safety and explantation feasibility remain to be determined.
Do leadless pacing systems overcome complications associated with conventional pacemaker therapy?
Leadless pacemakers represent a promising alternative to conventional systems by potentially reducing lead- and pocket-related complications, though long-term safety data is still needed.
Despite undisputable benefits, conventional pacemaker therapy is associated with specific complications related to the subcutaneous device and the transvenous leads. Recently, two miniaturized leadless pacemakers, Nanostim™ (St. Jude Medical) and Micra™ (Medtronic), which can be completely implanted inside the right ventricle using steerable delivery systems, entered clinical application. The WiCS™-cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) system (wireless cardiac stimulation for CRT, EBR Systems) delivers leadless left ventricular endocardial stimulation for cardiac resynchronization. In addition to obvious cosmetic benefits, leadless pacing systems may have the potential to overcome some complications of conventional pacing. However, acute and long-term complications still remains to be determined, as well as the feasibility of device explantation years after device placement.
Sperzel et al. (Fri,) conducted a review in Pacemaker therapy. Leadless pacemakers (Nanostim, Micra, WiCS-CRT) vs. Conventional pacemaker therapy was evaluated. Leadless pacing systems offer potential cosmetic benefits and may overcome conventional pacing complications, though long-term safety and explantation feasibility remain to be determined.