Factors influencing the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Prospective Survey. Issue 4 (20th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boveda, Serge; Marijon, Eloi; Lenarczyk, Radoslaw; Iliodromitis, Konstantinos E; Marin, Francisco; Defaye, Pascal; Solnon, Aude; Dagres, Nikolaos; Potpara, Tatjana S
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 22:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 667
• Page End: 673
• Publication Date: 2020-01-20
• Subjects: European Heart Rhythm Association survey -- Leadless pacing -- Atrial fibrillation -- Infection; Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz357
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: To study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM. A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey using electronically distributed questionnaire sent to participating centres. Participating tertiary cardiac pacing centres prospectively included consecutive patients implanted between November 2018 and January 2019. Questions covered standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing LL-PM vs. TV-PM. Overall, 21 centres from four countries (France, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) participated, with eventual data from 798 patients ( n = 472, 59% male). With 69 implants, LL-PM represented only 9% of all implants and 36% of the single-chamber pacing group; double-chamber transvenous pacemakers were implanted in 528 patients and biventricular (cardiac resynchronization pacemaker) in 79. The two major reasons reported in favour of LL-PM implantation were an anticipated high risk of infection or low rate of ventricular pacing. Compared to TV-PM, LL-PM patients were more often male (74% vs. 54%, P = 0.009), with greater proportion of valvular heart disease (45% vs. 35%, P = 0.01) and atrial fibrillation (AF; 65% vs. 23%, P < 0.0001), with significantly more comorbidities (≥ one comorbidity, 66% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). This contemporary multicentre European survey shows that LL-PM constitutes a small proportion of all PM implants. Patients implanted with LL-PM were more likely to have AF and a high anticipated risk of infection.