PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 25, 2024EP Europace33 citationsOpen Access

Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein

View Full Paper
NMNadine MolitorSSShmaila Saleem‐TalibHRHemanth Ramanna

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Abstract Aims Leadless pacemaker therapy was introduced to overcome lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Implantation via the femoral vein, however, may not always be feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate leadless pacemaker implantation using a jugular vein approach and compare it to the standard implantation via the femoral vein. Methods and results The records of the first consecutive 100 patients undergoing Micra™ leadless pacemaker implantation via the right internal jugular vein from two centres were included in this study. Peri-procedural safety and efficacy of the jugular approach were compared to the first 100 patients using a femoral implantation approach at the University Hospital Zurich. One hundred patients underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker via the internal jugular vein (mean age, 81.18 ± 8.29, 60% males). Mean procedure time was 35.63 ± 10.29 min with a mean fluoroscopy time of 4.66 ± 5.16 min. The device was positioned at the inferior septum in 25 patients, at the high septum in 24 patients, and mid-septum in 51 patients. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.35 V at 0.24 ms pulse width with a sensed amplitude of 10.0 ± 4.4 mV. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in all patients. Compared with femoral implantation, patients undergoing the jugular approach were of similar age and had similar comorbidities. Mean procedure (48.9 ± 21.0 min) and fluoroscopy times (7.7 ± 7.8 min, both P 0.01) were shorter compared to the femoral approach. Electrical parameters were similar between the two approaches. There were only two complications during jugular veinous implantations (1 pericardial effusion and 1 dislocation), compared to 16 complications using the femoral approach (1 pericardial effusion, 2 femoral artery injuries, and 13 major groin haematomas). Conclusion The jugular approach may represent a safe and efficient alternative to femoral implantation of the Micra leadless pacemaker.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Molitor et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5f0a2b6db643587585116https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae199
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A Leadless Intracardiac Transcatheter Pacing System2015 · 926 citations
  2. 2Same-day discharge after atrial fibrillation ablation under a nurse-coordinated standardized protocol2024 · 11 citations
  3. 3The jugular approach for leadless pacing: A novel and safe alternative2022 · 40 citations
  4. 4Feasibility and long-term effectiveness of a non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation in a referral centre for lead extraction2018 · 34 citations
  5. 5Leadless pacing using the transcatheter pacing system (Micra TPS) in the real world: initial Swiss experience from the Romandie region2018 · 44 citations