Leadless pacemaker implantation versus conventional transvenous cardiac pacing early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a safe and relevant option?

Abstract Background Leadless pacemakers (LPM) are known to have lower postoperative complications than conventional transvenous cardiac pacing especially in frail patients (pts) with many comorbidities. The aim of this study was to assess the "real-life" feasibility and outcomes of LPMs compared to transvenous pacemakers (TPMs) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods This is a retrospective single center study including all consecutive patients who received LPM or TPM (either single or double chamber) implantation early after a TAVR over a one-year period since September 2022 with a follow up period of at least 3 months. Results 71 pts were included (mean age 82,56 ± 7,1 years old). 16 pts underwent LPM implantation (22,5%). Leadless system pacing was preferred in pts with history of active systemic infection 43,8%, complex conventional vascular approach 12,5 %, deterioration of general condition and clinical frailty 18,8% and history of breast cancer in 25 % pts. Mean time between appearance of conductive disorders and pacemaker implantation was longer (2,9± 2,8 vs 1,5 ± 1,3 days; p=0,06) in the LPM group probably due to organizational issues. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LPM group (46 ±20,5 vs 69 ± 21,1 min; p = 0,01). There was no statistically significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the 2 groups even though this parameter was longer in the LPM group (6,8 min vs 5,6 min; p = 0,413). Significantly lower thresholds were observed in pts with LPM implantation (0,45 ± 0,33 vs 0,66 ± 0,25 V; p = 0,017) with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups concerning the per-operative impedance value. Median time from pacemaker implantation to discharge was 3,12 ± 3,26 vs 4,78 ±7,16 days after LPM and TPM implantation respectively (p = 0,195). There were less complications in the LPM group (1,4 % vs 9,9 %; p = 0,471). Complications were: arteriovenous fistula for 1 pt with LPM vs 2 pocket hematomas, 1 pneumothorax, 1 per-operative cardiac arrest and 3 leads dislodgements in pts with TPM. The mortality rate was significantly higher in the LPM group (4,2 % vs 2,8 %; p = 0,038) although no pacemaker related deaths were reported in both groups and no significant difference between the 2 groups was noted concerning rehospitalisations for cardiovascular cause (p= 0,407). Conclusion Early LPM implantation after TAVR is a feasible alternative to conventional pacing with significantly shorter procedure durations and better pacing thresholds. Our experience confirms the global clinical frailty of patients receiving LPM after TAVR but underlines the favorable safety profile of leadless system pacing with a low rate of complications.