4.8 Article

Permanent Leadless Cardiac Pacing Results of the LEADLESS Trial

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 129, Issue 14, Pages 1466-1471

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006987

Keywords

pacemaker; cardiac

Funding

  1. Nanostim Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Conventional cardiac pacemakers are associated with several potential short- and long-term complications related to either the transvenous lead or subcutaneous pulse generator. We tested the safety and clinical performance of a novel, completely self-contained leadless cardiac pacemaker. Methods and Results The primary safety end point was freedom from complications at 90 days. Secondary performance end points included implant success rate, implant time, and measures of device performance (pacing/sensing thresholds and rate-responsive performance). The mean age of the patient cohort (n=33) was 778 years, and 67% of the patients were male (n=22/33). The most common indication for cardiac pacing was permanent atrial fibrillation with atrioventricular block (n=22, 67%). The implant success rate was 97% (n=32). Five patients (15%) required the use of >1 leadless cardiac pacemaker during the procedure. One patient developed right ventricular perforation and cardiac tamponade during the implant procedure, and eventually died as the result of a stroke. The overall complication-free rate was 94% (31/33). After 3 months of follow-up, the measures of pacing performance (sensing, impedance, and pacing threshold) either improved or were stable within the accepted range. Conclusions In a prospective nonrandomized study, a completely self-contained, single-chamber leadless cardiac pacemaker has shown to be safe and feasible. The absence of a transvenous lead and subcutaneous pulse generator could represent a paradigm shift in cardiac pacing. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01700244.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available