Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

To retrieve, or not to retrieve: System revisions with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker

2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 14; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.07.015

1556-3871

Eric Grubman, Philippe Ritter, Christopher R. Ellis, Michael Giocondo, Ralph Augostini, Petr Neužil, Bipin Ravindran, Anshul M. Patel, Pamela Omdahl, Karen S. Pieper, Kurt Stromberg, J. Harrison Hudnall, Dwight Reynolds,

Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

BackgroundEarly experience with leadless pacemakers has shown a low rate of complications. However, little is known about system revision in patients with these devices.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the system revision experience with the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS).MethodsPatients with implants from the Pre-market Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study and the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study (N = 989) were analyzed and compared with 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). Revisions included TPS retrieval/explant, repositioning, replacement, or electrical deactivation (with or without prior attempt at retrieval, generally followed by TVP implant) for any reason. Kaplan-Meier revision rates were calculated to account for varying follow-up duration and were compared using a Fine-Gray competing risk model.ResultsThe actuarial rate for revision at 24 months postimplant was 1.4% for the TPS group (11 revisions in 10 patients), 75% (95% confidence interval 53%–87%; P < .001) lower than the 5.3% for the TVP group (123 revisions in 117 patients). TPS revisions occurred 5–430 days postimplant for elevated pacing thresholds, need for alternate therapy, pacemaker syndrome, and prosthetic valve endocarditis; none were due to device dislodgment or device-related infection. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 7 cases, 3 were retrieved percutaneously (range 9–406 days postimplant), and 1 was surgically removed during aortic valve surgery.ConclusionThe overall system revision rate for patients with TPS at 24 months was 1.4%, 75% lower than that for patients with TVPs. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 64% of revisions, and percutaneous retrieval was successful as late as 14 months postimplant. Early experience with leadless pacemakers has shown a low rate of complications. However, little is known about system revision in patients with these devices. The purpose of this study was to describe the system revision experience with the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS). Patients with implants from the Pre-market Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study and the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study (N = 989) were analyzed and compared with 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). Revisions included TPS retrieval/explant, repositioning, replacement, or electrical deactivation (with or without prior attempt at retrieval, generally followed by TVP implant) for any reason. Kaplan-Meier revision rates were calculated to account for varying follow-up duration and were compared using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. The actuarial rate for revision at 24 months postimplant was 1.4% for the TPS group (11 revisions in 10 patients), 75% (95% confidence interval 53%–87%; P < .001) lower than the 5.3% for the TVP group (123 revisions in 117 patients). TPS revisions occurred 5–430 days postimplant for elevated pacing thresholds, need for alternate therapy, pacemaker syndrome, and prosthetic valve endocarditis; none were due to device dislodgment or device-related infection. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 7 cases, 3 were retrieved percutaneously (range 9–406 days postimplant), and 1 was surgically removed during aortic valve surgery. The overall system revision rate for patients with TPS at 24 months was 1.4%, 75% lower than that for patients with TVPs. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 64% of revisions, and percutaneous retrieval was successful as late as 14 months postimplant.