RESUMEN
Leadless pacemaker implantation represents an important advancement in the treatment of bradycardia, and occupy an increasing part in the clinic. Major adverse effects associated with leadless pacemaker implantation are rare, with a serious complication being pericardial effusion. We present a case of a patient who had a leadless pacemaker implanted, which induced ventricular tachycardia and cardiac arrest during hospitalization.
Asunto(s)
Paro Cardíaco/etiología , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Taquicardia Ventricular/etiología , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Bradicardia/terapia , Electrocardiografía , Diseño de Equipo , Falla de Equipo , Humanos , Masculino , Taquicardia Ventricular/diagnósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Early results of the Micra Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study and Micra Post-Approval Registry (PAR) demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy performance; however, intermediate-term results across a large patient population in the real-world setting have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We report updated performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker from a worldwide PAR and compare it with the IDE study as well as a transvenous historical control. METHODS: The safety objective of the analysis was system- or procedure-related major complications through 12 months postimplantation. We compared the major complication rate with that of the 726 patients from the IDE and with a reference data set of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers by using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: The Micra device was successfully implanted in 1801 of 1817 patients (99.1%). The mean follow-up period was 6.8 ± 6.9 months. Through 12 months, the major complication rate was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0%-3.7%). The risk of major complications for Micra PAR patients was 63% lower than that for patients with transvenous pacemakers through 12 months postimplantation (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.27-0.52; P < .001). The major complication rate trended lower in the PAR than in the IDE study (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.1; P = .160), driven by the lower pericardial effusion rate in the PAR. There were 3 cases of infection associated with the procedure, but none required device removal and there were no battery or telemetry issues. Pacing thresholds were low and stable through 12 months postimplantation. CONCLUSION: Performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker in international clinical practice remains consistent with previously reported data. Major complications were infrequent and occurred 63% less often compared to transvenous systems. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873.