M. Parollo, V. Barletta, L. Mazzocchetti, F. Gentile, R. De Lucia, S. Viani, L. Segreti, A. Di Cori, G. Zucchelli, M. Bongiorni
{"title":"经静脉拔铅后植入无铅起搏器的可行性及远期疗效","authors":"M. Parollo, V. Barletta, L. Mazzocchetti, F. Gentile, R. De Lucia, S. Viani, L. Segreti, A. Di Cori, G. Zucchelli, M. Bongiorni","doi":"10.1093/europace/euac053.414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Type of funding sources: None.\n \n \n \n Infections and malfunction are major indications to transvenous lead extraction. Managing extracted patients represents a clinical and interventional challenge, since this population may be at higher risk for mechanical, vascular or infective complications.\n The use of leadless pacing systems has been described as a potentially useful technology that could tackle the obstacles that affect this peculiar population.\n The study aimed to investigate feasibility and long-term outcomes of M-TPS implant in a specific patient population, like post transvenous lead extraction patients, which represent a challenge for conventional cardiac pacing.\n \n \n \n Between May 2014 and November 2021, 155 patients (120 males, 77.42%, mean age 78 ± 9 y) underwent M-TPS implantation in our Center, targeting a non-apical site of delivery when feasible. A subgroup of 48 patients (39 males, 81.25%) had undergone transvenous lead extraction. All patients fulfilled standard criteria for pacemaker implantation with specific indication to receive VVI pacing. The outcome evaluation included electrical performance (capture threshold, pacing impedance, R wave amplitude) before hospital discharge and then followed at 1, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Major complications were defined as life-threatening events, required surgical intervention or any event causing significant hemodynamic instability or resulting in death. High pacing threshold (HPT) was defined as 1.0 V/0.24 ms.\n \n \n \n In 48/155 cases (39 males, 81,25%) M-TPS was implanted after successful transvenous lead extraction. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for demographics characteristics, and PM implant indications. The implant procedure was successful in all cases and no device-related events were registered during follow-up. In particular, no device infection and/or malfunction were reported. Patients were followed-up for an average of 24 months (median 18 months). No differences were observed between groups in procedure duration, single device delivery (group 1 vs group 2: 63.21% vs 73.91%, p=0.20), fluoroscopy time (group 1 vs group 2: 11.79 ± 7.53 vs 10.49 ± 6.19 minutes, p=0.64), electrical performance at implant (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.54 ± 0.35 V/0.24 ms vs 0.62 ± 0.32 V/0.24 ms, p=0.09; impedance 758.02 ± 227.89 Ohm vs 724.26 ± 178.14 Ohm, p=0.36; R wave amplitude 10.1 ± 4.73 mV vs 9.59 ± 5.30 mV, p=0.50) and at 18 month F-U (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.50 ± 0.10 V/0.24 ms vs 0.85 ± 0.9 V/0.24 ms, p=0.45; impedance 559.58 ± 94.43 Ohm vs 543.34 ± 64.39 Ohm, p=0.69; R wave amplitude 12.00 ± 5.06 mV vs 13.42 ± 5.77 mV, p=0.55).\n \n \n \n Leadless pacemaker implant is a feasible, safe and effective option for patients treated with transvenous lead extraction, with electrical performance and outcomes comparable to a cohort of naïve patients at long-term follow up.\n","PeriodicalId":11720,"journal":{"name":"EP Europace","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and long-term outcomes of leadless pacemaker implant after transvenous lead extraction\",\"authors\":\"M. Parollo, V. Barletta, L. Mazzocchetti, F. Gentile, R. De Lucia, S. Viani, L. Segreti, A. Di Cori, G. Zucchelli, M. Bongiorni\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/europace/euac053.414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n Type of funding sources: None.\\n \\n \\n \\n Infections and malfunction are major indications to transvenous lead extraction. Managing extracted patients represents a clinical and interventional challenge, since this population may be at higher risk for mechanical, vascular or infective complications.\\n The use of leadless pacing systems has been described as a potentially useful technology that could tackle the obstacles that affect this peculiar population.\\n The study aimed to investigate feasibility and long-term outcomes of M-TPS implant in a specific patient population, like post transvenous lead extraction patients, which represent a challenge for conventional cardiac pacing.\\n \\n \\n \\n Between May 2014 and November 2021, 155 patients (120 males, 77.42%, mean age 78 ± 9 y) underwent M-TPS implantation in our Center, targeting a non-apical site of delivery when feasible. A subgroup of 48 patients (39 males, 81.25%) had undergone transvenous lead extraction. All patients fulfilled standard criteria for pacemaker implantation with specific indication to receive VVI pacing. The outcome evaluation included electrical performance (capture threshold, pacing impedance, R wave amplitude) before hospital discharge and then followed at 1, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Major complications were defined as life-threatening events, required surgical intervention or any event causing significant hemodynamic instability or resulting in death. High pacing threshold (HPT) was defined as 1.0 V/0.24 ms.\\n \\n \\n \\n In 48/155 cases (39 males, 81,25%) M-TPS was implanted after successful transvenous lead extraction. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for demographics characteristics, and PM implant indications. The implant procedure was successful in all cases and no device-related events were registered during follow-up. In particular, no device infection and/or malfunction were reported. Patients were followed-up for an average of 24 months (median 18 months). No differences were observed between groups in procedure duration, single device delivery (group 1 vs group 2: 63.21% vs 73.91%, p=0.20), fluoroscopy time (group 1 vs group 2: 11.79 ± 7.53 vs 10.49 ± 6.19 minutes, p=0.64), electrical performance at implant (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.54 ± 0.35 V/0.24 ms vs 0.62 ± 0.32 V/0.24 ms, p=0.09; impedance 758.02 ± 227.89 Ohm vs 724.26 ± 178.14 Ohm, p=0.36; R wave amplitude 10.1 ± 4.73 mV vs 9.59 ± 5.30 mV, p=0.50) and at 18 month F-U (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.50 ± 0.10 V/0.24 ms vs 0.85 ± 0.9 V/0.24 ms, p=0.45; impedance 559.58 ± 94.43 Ohm vs 543.34 ± 64.39 Ohm, p=0.69; R wave amplitude 12.00 ± 5.06 mV vs 13.42 ± 5.77 mV, p=0.55).\\n \\n \\n \\n Leadless pacemaker implant is a feasible, safe and effective option for patients treated with transvenous lead extraction, with electrical performance and outcomes comparable to a cohort of naïve patients at long-term follow up.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":11720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EP Europace\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EP Europace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac053.414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EP Europace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac053.414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
资金来源类型:无。感染和功能障碍是经静脉拔铅的主要适应症。由于这一人群发生机械、血管或感染性并发症的风险较高,因此对摘除患者的管理是一项临床和介入挑战。无导线起搏系统的使用被认为是一种潜在的有用技术,可以解决影响这一特殊人群的障碍。该研究旨在探讨M-TPS植入物在特定患者群体中的可行性和长期效果,如经静脉拔铅后患者,这对传统的心脏起搏提出了挑战。2014年5月至2021年11月,155例患者(男性120例,77.42%,平均年龄78±9岁)在我中心接受了M-TPS植入术,在可行的情况下选择非根尖位置。亚组48例患者(男性39例,占81.25%)行经静脉拔铅术。所有患者均符合起搏器植入标准,并有特定适应症接受VVI起搏。结果评估包括出院前的电性能(捕获阈值、起搏阻抗、R波振幅),然后在1、6、12个月随访,然后每年随访。主要并发症被定义为危及生命的事件,需要手术干预或任何引起明显血流动力学不稳定或导致死亡的事件。高起搏阈值(HPT)为1.0 V/0.24 ms。48/155例(男性39例,81.25%)经静脉拔铅成功后植入M-TPS。在人口统计学特征和PM种植指征方面,组间无统计学差异。所有病例的植入手术均成功,随访期间无器械相关事件发生。特别是,没有设备感染和/或故障的报告。患者平均随访24个月(中位18个月)。两组间在手术时间、单个装置交付(组1 vs组2:63.21% vs 73.91%, p=0.20)、透视时间(组1 vs组2:11.79±7.53 vs 10.49±6.19分钟,p=0.64)、植入物电学性能(组1 vs组2:起搏阈值0.54±0.35 V/0.24 ms vs 0.62±0.32 V/0.24 ms, p=0.09;阻抗758.02±227.89欧姆vs 724.26±178.14欧姆,p=0.36;R波振幅10.1±4.73 mV vs 9.59±5.30 mV, p=0.50)和18个月F-U(1组vs 2组:起搏阈值0.50±0.10 V/0.24 ms vs 0.85±0.9 V/0.24 ms, p=0.45;阻抗559.58±94.43 Ohm vs 543.34±64.39 Ohm, p=0.69;R波振幅12.00±5.06 mV vs 13.42±5.77 mV, p=0.55)。对于经静脉拔铅治疗的患者,无铅起搏器植入是一种可行、安全、有效的选择,其电学性能和结果与长期随访的naïve患者队列相当。
Feasibility and long-term outcomes of leadless pacemaker implant after transvenous lead extraction
Type of funding sources: None.
Infections and malfunction are major indications to transvenous lead extraction. Managing extracted patients represents a clinical and interventional challenge, since this population may be at higher risk for mechanical, vascular or infective complications.
The use of leadless pacing systems has been described as a potentially useful technology that could tackle the obstacles that affect this peculiar population.
The study aimed to investigate feasibility and long-term outcomes of M-TPS implant in a specific patient population, like post transvenous lead extraction patients, which represent a challenge for conventional cardiac pacing.
Between May 2014 and November 2021, 155 patients (120 males, 77.42%, mean age 78 ± 9 y) underwent M-TPS implantation in our Center, targeting a non-apical site of delivery when feasible. A subgroup of 48 patients (39 males, 81.25%) had undergone transvenous lead extraction. All patients fulfilled standard criteria for pacemaker implantation with specific indication to receive VVI pacing. The outcome evaluation included electrical performance (capture threshold, pacing impedance, R wave amplitude) before hospital discharge and then followed at 1, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Major complications were defined as life-threatening events, required surgical intervention or any event causing significant hemodynamic instability or resulting in death. High pacing threshold (HPT) was defined as 1.0 V/0.24 ms.
In 48/155 cases (39 males, 81,25%) M-TPS was implanted after successful transvenous lead extraction. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for demographics characteristics, and PM implant indications. The implant procedure was successful in all cases and no device-related events were registered during follow-up. In particular, no device infection and/or malfunction were reported. Patients were followed-up for an average of 24 months (median 18 months). No differences were observed between groups in procedure duration, single device delivery (group 1 vs group 2: 63.21% vs 73.91%, p=0.20), fluoroscopy time (group 1 vs group 2: 11.79 ± 7.53 vs 10.49 ± 6.19 minutes, p=0.64), electrical performance at implant (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.54 ± 0.35 V/0.24 ms vs 0.62 ± 0.32 V/0.24 ms, p=0.09; impedance 758.02 ± 227.89 Ohm vs 724.26 ± 178.14 Ohm, p=0.36; R wave amplitude 10.1 ± 4.73 mV vs 9.59 ± 5.30 mV, p=0.50) and at 18 month F-U (group 1 vs group 2: pacing threshold 0.50 ± 0.10 V/0.24 ms vs 0.85 ± 0.9 V/0.24 ms, p=0.45; impedance 559.58 ± 94.43 Ohm vs 543.34 ± 64.39 Ohm, p=0.69; R wave amplitude 12.00 ± 5.06 mV vs 13.42 ± 5.77 mV, p=0.55).
Leadless pacemaker implant is a feasible, safe and effective option for patients treated with transvenous lead extraction, with electrical performance and outcomes comparable to a cohort of naïve patients at long-term follow up.