Does the combined use of Aveir and Micra AV2 leadless pacemakers provide reliable pacing in a patient with complex congenital heart disease and pacing dependence?
This case demonstrates the feasibility of using two different leadless pacemakers (Aveir in the atrium and Micra AV2 in the ventricle) to achieve dual-chamber pacing in a patient with complex congenital heart disease.
INTRODUCTION: Patients with congenital heart disease are at increased risk for requiring cardiac pacing during their lifetime. METHODS: We present the first described case of using two leadless pacing systems manufactured by separate companies implanted within the same patient to provide atrial and ventricular pacing due to complex congenital anatomy. RESULTS: A 27-year-old male with dextrocardia with double outlet right ventricle, subaortic ventricular septal defect, and pulmonary stenosis status-post pulmonary valve replacement complicated by ventricular pacing dependence and subsequent atrial pacing dependence after atriotomy-based atypical flutter ablation developed recurrent mediastinitis and pocket infection with erosion despite prolonged antibiotic treatment. Due to atrial and ventricular pacing dependence, a comprehensive congenital care team concluded the need for lead extraction and replacement of pacemaker via leadless peacemaking device. Laser-lead extraction and temporary atrial pacemaker placement was performed. Afterward, a transesophageal echocardiogram guided implantation of both a Micra AV 2 (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker in the interventricular septum within the right ventricle and an Aveir (Abbott) leadless pacemaker in the superior base of the right atrial appendage was performed with successful pacing. Although there is no communication between these devices, atrial-mechanical ventricular pacing was reliable with good implant thresholds, impedances and sensing from both devices. CONCLUSION: Our case demonstrates the feasibility of using dual leadless pacing modalities to simultaneously pace someone at complex, prohibitive risk for temporary permanent or permanent pacemaker devices.
English et al. (2024) studied this question.