Implantation of a MICRA Leadless Pacemaker Via Right Internal Jugular Vein

Leadless Pacemakers: State of the Art and Selection of the Ideal Candidate

The field of cardiac pacing has been defined by constant development to provide efficacious, safe, and reliable therapy. Traditional pacing utilizes transvenous leads, which dwell in the venous system and place patients at risk for complications, including pneumothorax, bleeding, infection, vascular obstruction, and valvular compromise. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing while providing safe and effective pacing therapy for an increasing population of patients. The Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system was approved by the FDA in April of 2016 and the Abbott Aveir pacemaker was approved in April of 2022. Several additional leadless pacemakers are in various stages of development and testing. There exists limited guidance on the selection of the ideal candidate for leadless pacemakers. Advantages of leadless pacemakers include decreased infection risk, overcoming limited vascular access, and avoidance of interaction with the tricuspid valve apparatus. Disadvantages of leadless pacemakers include right ventricular-only pacing, unclear lifecycle management, cost, perforation risk, and lack of integration with defibrillator systems. This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art of leadless pacemakers, currently approved systems, clinical trials and real-world evidence, considerations for patient selection, and future directions of this promising technology.

The jugular approach for leadless pacing. A novel and safe alternative

AIMS

To evaluate safety of leadless pacemaker implantation through the internal jugular vein in a larger cohort with longer follow-up. Moreover, feasibility of non-apical pacing as well as relation between pacing site and QRS duration were assessed.

METHODS

82 consecutive patients, who received a leadless pacemaker though the internal jugular vein were included. Electrical parameters were measured at regular follow-up and any complications were registered. Paced QRS interval was compared for three pacing sites, RVOT, RV mid septum and RV apical septum.

RESULTS

In all patients the leadless pacemaker was implanted successfully. In 69 patients the device was implanted in a non-apical position. In 71% of cases, the device could be deployed at first attempt. The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4minutes (range 0.9-51-) The paced QRS interval was significantly narrower for non-apical pacing compared to apical pacing 156ms. vs 179 ms. P = 0.04 respectively. During mean follow-up of 16 months (range 0-43 months) electrical parameters remained stable. Two complications occurred which could be resolved during the implant procedure. There were no access site related complications.

CONCLUSION

The jugular approach for leadless pacemaker implantation is feasibly and may avoid vascular complications. It facilitates non-apical positioning of leadless pacemakers leading to a narrower paced QRS interval. The jugular approach allows for immediate post procedural ambulation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Strategies to overcome complicated situations in leadless pacemaker implantation

Although leadless pacemaker implantation is not complicated, challenges exist in complex situations, which can be prevented and resolved with appropriate treatments including dealing with the abnormal venous access or choosing a superior vena cava approach, implanting at the septum rather than the apex, a snare assistant technique to deployment, assurance of solid fixation, and snaring dislodged device.

Micra trans-catheter leadless pacemaker implantation in a patient with large right heart

The use of leadless trans-catheter pacemakers is increasing particularly in the elderly population. However, its indication for those with anatomical anomaly remains unknown. We had a 75-year-old woman with atrial standstill and ventricular escape. Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) failed to be deployed due to too enlarged right atrium accompanied by atrial septal deficiency, followed by successful implantation of transvenous pacemaker lead by using SelectSecure lead (Medtronic) with a C315 delivery catheter that enhanced back-up force toward the ventricular septum against significant tricuspid regurgitation. The Micra is a promising system, but we should understand its limitations as well as alternative systems particularly for such an anatomical anatomy. <Learning objective: A Micra leadless trans-catheter pacemaker is a promising system with less invasiveness, particularly for elderly patients, but we should understand its technical limitation and consider alternative systems if necessary, particularly for those with enlarged right heart.>.

The Large Right Heart Is Associated with the Prolongation of the Procedure Time of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation

Background and objectives: Leadless pacemakers are less invasive but are as effective as conventional pacemakers and are increasingly implanted in elderly patients. However, the implantation procedure is sometimes challenging in patients with abnormal anatomy, particularly those with an enlarged right heart. We aimed to determine the right heart parameters that were associated with longer procedure times for leadless pacemaker implantation. Materials and Methods: Among 19 consecutive patients in whom Micra leadless pacemakers (Micra TPS, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were implanted, the diameter and area of both the right atrium and right ventricle were measured by transthoracic echocardiography before the procedure. The right heart parameters that were associated with a procedure time > 60 min were investigated. Results: In the 19 patients (median 81 years old, 10 male) who underwent implantation of the Micra system, 6 (32%) required a procedure time > 60 min. Among the baseline right heart echocardiographic parameters, right atrial diameter and area were significantly associated with a procedure time > 60 min (odds ratio 11.3, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.17, p = 0.042; and odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.34, p = 0.029, respectively) at a cutoff of 4.0 cm and 17.0 cm2, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with an enlarged right atrium may not be good candidates for leadless pacemakers given the longer procedure time, and conventional pacemakers should perhaps be recommended as an alternative.

Bilateral external iliac vein compression-An important consideration in implantation of leadless permanent pacemaker

We report on an unusual case with asymptomatic bilateral external iliac vein non-thrombotic obstruction causing difficulty in delivery of the leadless permanent pacemaker and discuss on the strategies to overcome the problem.

Leadless pacing: Going for the jugular

Background

Leadless pacing is generally performed from a femoral approach. However, the femoral route is not always available. Until now, data regarding implantation using a jugular approach other than a single‐case report were lacking.

Methods

The case records of all patients who underwent internal jugular venous (IJV) leadless pacemaker implantation (Micra, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) at our center were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Nineteen patients underwent IJV leadless pacemaker implantation, nine females, mean age of 77.5 ±9.6  years; permanent atrial fibrillation in all patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Implant indication was atrioventricular conduction disturbance in 10, pre‐AV node ablation in seven, and replacement of a conventional VVI pacemaker in two (infection in one and lead malfunction in the other). The device was positioned at the superior septum in seven patients, apicoseptal in seven patients, and midseptal in five patients. In 12 patients, a sufficient device position was obtained at the first attempt, in three at the second, in one at the third, in one at the fourth, and in two at the sixth attempt.

The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.39V at 0.24‐ms pulse width, sensed amplitude was 9.1 ± 3.2 mV, mean fluoroscopy duration was 3.1 ± 1.6 min. There were no vascular or other complications. At follow‐up, electrical parameters remained stable in 18 of 19 patients.

Conclusion

Although experience is minimal, we suggest that the IJV approach is safe and may be considered in patients where the femoral approach is contraindicated.

[Micra™ leadless pacemaker : Clinical experience and perspectives]

Leadless pacemakers have the potential to fundamentally change the field of device therapy. As leads and generator pockets are no longer needed with this technology, many potentially dangerous complications of conventional pacemaker systems like lead fractures, lead endocarditis or pocket infections can be effectively avoided. At present, Micra™ (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) is the only commercially available leadless pacemaker. Since its first-in-human implantation in 2013, thousands of these devices have been implanted worldwide. This article presents an overview of the present clinical evidence and future perspectives of this promising new technology.