Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis

AIMS

The safety and efficacy of leadless intracardiac-permanent pacemaker (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but data on comparisons with conventional transvenous-permanent pacemaker (T-PM) collected in a consecutive, prospective fashion are limited. The aim of this analysis was to compare the rate and the nature of device-related complications between patients undergoing L-PM vs. T-PM implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, multicentre, observational project enrolling consecutive patients who underwent L-PM or T-PM implantation. The rate and nature of device-related complications were analysed and compared between the two groups. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed. A total of 2669 (n = 665 L-PM) patients were included and followed for a median of 39 months, L-PM patients were on average older and had more co-morbidities. The risk of device-related complications at 12 months was significantly lower in the L-PM group (0.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.009). Propensity matching yielded 442 matched pairs. In the matched cohort, L-PM patients trended toward having a lower risk of overall device-related complications (P = 0.129), had a similar risk of early complications (≤30 days) (P = 1.000), and had a significantly lower risk of late complications (>30 days) (P = 0.031). All complications observed in L-PM group were early. Most (75.0%) of complications observed in T-PM group were lead- or pocket-related.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, the risk of device-related complications associated with L-PM implantation tended to be lower than that of T-PM. Specifically, the risk of early complications was similar in two types of PMs, while the risk of late complications was significantly lower for L-PM than T-PM.

Leadless transcatheter pacemaker: Indications, implantation technique and peri-procedural patient management in the Italian clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence.

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.