Review Article

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

Leadless pacing is a rapidly growing field. Initially designed to provide right ventricular pacing for those who were contraindicated for conventional devices, the technology is growing to explore the potential benefit of avoiding long-term transvenous leads in any patient who requires pacing. In this review, we first examine the safety and performance of leadless pacing devices. We then review the evidence for their use in special populations, such as patients with high risk of device infection, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with vasovagal syncope who represent a younger population who may wish to avoid transvenous pacing. We also summarise the evidence for leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy and conduction system pacing and discuss the challenges of managing issues, such as system revisions, end of battery life and extractions. Finally, we discuss future directions in the field, such as completely leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator devices and whether leadless pacing has the potential to become a first-line therapy in the near future.

Disclosure:NW receives fellowship funding from the British Heart Foundation (FS/CRTF/22/24362). VM has received fellowship funding from Abbott. SN acknowledges support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M012492/1, NS/A000049/1, and EP/P01268X/1), the British Heart Foundation (PG/15/91/31812,PG/13/37/30280, SP/18/6/33805), US National Institutes of Health (NIH R01-HL152256), European Research Council (ERC PREDICT-HF 864055) and Kings Health Partners London National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre. CAR receives research funding and/or consultation fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Spectranetics, EBR Systems and MicroPort outside of the submitted work. JMB recieves research funding and/or consultation fees from Abbott, Siemens Healthcare, EBR Systems and Biosense Webster outside of submitted work. FDV has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Funding:

The authors are supported by the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering (WT203148/Z/16/Z).

Correspondence Details:Nadeev Wijesuriya, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, Rayne Institute, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital, Westminster Bridge Rd, London SE1 7EH, UK. E: nadeev.wijesuriya@kcl.ac.uk

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Leadless devices are the next frontier in the field of cardiac pacing. While conventional pacing systems have a long history of widespread use and a robust evidence base, leadless technology is attractive in its potential to subvert the long-term issues inherent to transvenous leads, such as fracture (1–4%), tricuspid regurgitation (5%) and infection (1–2%).1 The first leadless right ventricular (RV) pacing device, the Nanostim (St Jude Medical, now Abbott) was implanted in 2012.2 Roughly 1,400 devices were implanted worldwide; however, it was discontinued due to issues with premature battery depletion.3 The vast majority of knowledge and experience in leadless pacing is through widespread use of Micra (Medtronic), which was first implanted in 2013 (Figure 1).4 There have been more than 150,000 Micra implants worldwide since then, primarily driven by high penetrance in the US, which accounts for over 90,000 implants.5 The EMPOWER device (Boston Scientific) and the Aveir device (Abbott) have entered investigational trials, with the potential to greatly expand the indications for leadless technology.6,7 In addition, the Wireless Stimulation Endocardially (WiSE) for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) system (EBR Systems) has emerged as a system to effectively provide left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing in patients with an indication for CRT.8

In this article, we will first review the data for the safety and performance of leadless RV pacing devices, including addressing the topic of atrioventricular synchrony. We will then examine the potential uses of leadless technology in special populations: patients with high infection risk, patients on haemodialysis and those requiring CRT. We will review the challenges associated with leadless pacing, particularly how to manage devices at the end of battery life. Finally, we will provide a perspective on future directions in the field, including the potential for leadless conduction system pacing (CSP) and completely leadless therapy (CRT-D).

Safety

Real-world safety data in leadless pacing is primarily from the Micra-IDE study and the Micra Post-Approval Registry.9,10 The Micra-IDE study was an international multicentre trial of 725 patients who underwent an attempted Micra implantation, with the primary endpoint being freedom from procedure- or system-related complications.9 There were a total of 28 major safety events in 25 patients, a complication rate of 4%. There were 11 cases of traumatic cardiac injury, that is, perforation or effusion (1.6%) and five cases of vascular complications at the groin puncture site (0.7%). This study also evaluated Micra safety against a historical control cohort of 2,667 patients who had received transvenous pacemakers and found that the study patients had fewer major complications (4% versus 7.4%, HR 0.49, 95% CI [0.33–0.75]; p=0.001), fewer hospitalisations and fewer system revisions, with no difference in tamponade rate between cohorts. The Micra Post-Approval Registry of 795 patients reported a major complication rate of 1.5%, including one traumatic cardiac tamponade (0.13%) and six vascular site complications (0.75%), thus demonstrating an improved safety profile for the implant procedure following the initial learning curve.10 These studies support the safety data from the LEADLESS II IDE study.11 This reported a short-term complication rate of 5.8% among 718 patients following Nanostim implantation, superior to a matched cohort who had received transvenous pacing (5.8% versus 9.4%, p=0.01), largely due to the elimination of pocket- and lead-related complications in the leadless cohort. However, in this study there was a higher rate of pericardial effusions in the leadless group (1.53% versus 0.35%, p=0.005) and, importantly, three out of seven of these patients required surgical intervention, suggesting that the severity of cardiac perforation may be greater with Nanostim than with transvenous leads. A large meta-analysis incorporating both the Micra-IDE and the Micra Post-Approval Registry sought to compare effusion rates with those receiving conventional pacing.12 This analysis reported a similar result to the LEADLESS-II study, with a weighted mean effusion rate of 0.31% in the conventional pacing group versus 1.52% in the leadless group.

Illustration of a Transcatheter Single Chamber Pacing System Positioned in the Right Ventricular Apex

Article image

A post-hoc analysis of Micra trials and registries by Piccini et al. identified several risk factors for peri-procedural effusions, which were similar to those that increase risk in conventional pacing and include increasing age, BMI <20, being a woman, heart failure, prior MI, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, absence of prior cardiothoracic surgery, and dialysis.13 The authors developed a risk score for prediction of effusions after leadless pacing and reported that in low-, medium- and high-risk patients, the effusion rates were 0.4%, 1.5% and 4.8%, respectively. Importantly, for medium- and high-risk patients there was a strong association between number of Micra deployments and observed effusion rate, whereas this was not seen in the low-risk group. They suggest from these data that implanters should exercise significant caution when considering redeployments for issues, such as high thresholds in moderate- or high-risk patients.

Overall, it is likely that the effusion rate for leadless pacemakers will continue to be higher than conventional devices, although recent studies would suggest that this risk is reducing following the global learning curve. In the most extensive cohort study to date involving 7,821 patients, the rate of effusion requiring intervention was 1%.14 It is unclear whether this is likely to decrease further with time. The elimination of pocket- and lead-related problems, however, means that it is likely that leadless pacing will outperform conventional pacing in terms of all-cause complications in the long term.

Performance

In terms of early electrical performance, in the Micra Post-approval Registry, among 701 patients with available implant data, 87.2% had a pacing capture threshold ≤1.0 V and 97.0% had a pacing capture threshold ≤2.0 V (mean = 0.6 ± 0.5 V at 0.24 ms).9 Results from the Micra Transcatheter Global Clinical Trial suggest that the medium- to long-term device performance was good, with 87% of patients with high implant thresholds (>1 mV) demonstrating an improved threshold at 6 months.15 Duray et al. reported excellent electrical performance of a cohort followed up over 24 months, with reducing capture thresholds, stable R-wave amplitudes and impedance (Figure 2), as well as good battery performance (mean projected battery longevity at 12 months was 12.1 years).16

An area of significant interest with regards to electrical performance in leadless pacing is atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and rate responsive pacing. The next generation Micra-AV system aims to provide AV synchrony through the mechanism of accelerometer-based atrial sensing.17 The accelerometer in the Micra device is able to detect various components of the cardiac cycle (Figure 3): isovolumic contraction and mitral/tricuspid valve closure (A1); aortic/pulmonary valve closure (A2); passive ventricular filling (A3); and atrial contraction (A4).18 The MASS and MASS 2 studies tested the feasibility of an algorithm using the detected A4 signal as an atrial marker triggering a programmable AV delay before ventricular pacing.17 These paved the way for the MARVEL study, which tested the feasibility of this single-chamber atrial synchronous ventricular pacing in 64 patients implanted with the Micra device.17 This prospective, non-randomised, multicentre clinical feasibility trial showed an average AV synchrony of 87% (95% CI [81.8–90.9]), with 83% of patients displaying AV synchrony rates over 70%. Importantly, in patients with AV block and those with an intrinsic rhythm, the rate of AV synchrony was lower during fast walking compared to at rest, suggesting that the algorithm underperforms when R-R intervals are short. The MARVEL 2 investigators sought to further delineate the predictors of poor AV synchrony and found in their study of 64 patients that the A4 amplitude was related to the atrial function measured through echocardiography.19 They also report a multivariable analysis showing that high AV synchrony was predicted by an E/A ratio of <0.94 and low sinus rate variability at rest. The authors concluded that these findings may inform future patient selection of VDD leadless pacing systems.

Further work is clearly needed in this area. The MASS and MARVEL studies were conducted with small patient numbers and used the first-generation Micra system with a downloaded AV algorithm, rather that the Micra AV system, for which data is sparse given its recent arrival on the market. Patient selection may ultimately be a key issue here – for example, given reduced AV synchrony at higher heart rates, while Micra may be a suitable option for an ‘average’ more sedentary complete heart block patient, the technology may not yet be at a stage to support the exercise tolerance of more active patients, for example those with congenital complete heart block or sinus node disease.

Preclinical animal studies have demonstrated the feasibility of both a Micra atrial device and the Aveir atrial device, which are still undergoing investigational trials.20,21 Safety profile will need to be closely examined in these devices – the right atrial appendage is a much thinner walled structure than the interventricular septum and RV apex, and as such, the risk of perforation will need to be mitigated. It is the eventual emergence of these dedicated atrial devices which will pave the way for true dual chamber pacing with the potential to match transvenous devices in performance and reliability.

Micra Electrical Parameters by Study Visit

Article image

Special Populations

Leadless pacing is becoming a popular choice for patients who require VVI pacing, especially in the US. There are other cohorts of patients for whom leadless pacing may be particularly beneficial, such as those with device infections, haemodialysis patients, and those with vasovagal syncope.

Device infection occurs at an incidence of about 0.5% at primary implantation and 1–7% for secondary procedures, such as generator changes, lead revisions and upgrades.22 Device infection is associated with significant morbidity, with consequences, such as endocarditis, and as such, is a class 1 indication for complete system extraction, which can be a high-risk procedure, especially in the presence of older transvenous leads.23 Leadless pacing is an attractive option in patients with previous device infections, or those who have a higher risk of infection. Autopsy studies have demonstrated complete encapsulation of leadless devices, which theoretically reduces risk of bacterial seeding to the device.24,25 In addition, it has been postulated that both the reduced surface area of leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous leads, and their position in the RV, a high velocity part of the circulation compared to the upper limb venous system, means that device infection is less likely.26 Real-world data in this regard is from analysis of the Micra-IDE study and the Post-approval Registry.26,27 Among 720 patients in the Micra-IDE study, 16 patients had 21 serious infection events during a mean follow-up of 13 months.26 The authors reported that in this small series, no persistent cases of bacteraemia were identified after antibiotic cessation during follow-up, and suggest that systemic infection should be treated differently in the presence of leadless devices compared to transvenous devices, where extraction is strongly recommended in the latter. Sub-analysis of the Post-approval Registry has provided evidence to support the use of Micra following device extraction for infection.27 In this analysis, 105 patients underwent Micra implantation at <30 days following a system explant for infection and 37% of Micra implants in this cohort took place at the same sitting as prior device extraction. The implant success rate was 99%, and during a mean of 8 months follow-up, there were no instances of leadless device explant due to infection. The authors concluded that while larger prospective studies are needed, leadless pacing is a safe alternative for those with device infection who undergo extraction.

Medtronic Micra-AV Accelerometer Signals

Article image

Another area where leadless pacing may be the safest – and in some cases, the only available option – is for people who are having haemodialysis. Patients with end stage renal failure requiring haemodialysis represent a high-risk cohort for transvenous pacing systems. Often, indwelling dialysis catheters using the subclavian veins may lead to stenosis or occlusion, thus precluding lead implantation.28 Similarly, pacemaker-induced central venous stenosis can cause multiple issues in patients undergoing haemodialysis, either via reducing central venous options for dialysis catheter placement, or symptomatic stenosis in those with arteriovenous fistula ipsilateral to the pacemaker site.29 The presence of indwelling catheters or fistulas that undergo constant access also increases the risk of seeding to transvenous devices.30 In an analysis of Micra trials, El-Chami et al. examined the outcomes of 201 haemodialysis patients who underwent Micra implantation.31 Of these, 72% had a condition that the physician felt precluded a transvenous device. The implant success rate was 98%, with reasons for procedure failure including inadequate thresholds (1%) and pericardial effusion (1%). There were three procedure-related deaths (two cardiac perforations, one metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure where concomitant AV node ablation was undertaken). There were no cases of device-related infection at a mean 6-month follow-up. The conclusions drawn from this study were that the procedure had an acceptable safety profile in this population, albeit in a small study with a short follow-up duration. A re-analysis of the Micra Registry would be useful to validate these findings with a larger patient cohort.

Components of the WiSE CRT System: Battery and Ultrasound Transmitter Implanted Subcutaneously

Article image

Finally, patients with vasovagal syncope may benefit from leadless pacing for very different reasons. Pacing in vasovagal syncope has an evidence base which consists largely of small, non-blinded studies and have returned mixed results.32 As such, the recommendation for pacing in this indication has been downgraded from 2a to 2b in the most recent guidelines.23 Nevertheless, it is not uncommon in clinical practice to pace those with severe cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope, especially in the presence of significant pauses. In these patients, who tend to be younger and have a good prognosis regardless of whether treated with pacing or not, leadless pacing offers the ability to provide this therapy without the significant co-morbidity associated with having a transvenous device from a young age. In addition, in view of low pacing burdens, the projected battery life is very long. The evidence in this area thus far is scarce – a retrospective observational study of 32 patients (mean age 37, average of four syncope episodes per year), demonstrated that at mean 404-day follow-up, 87% of patients were free from symptoms.32 These efficacy results are subject to the same caveats of previous trials in this field: lack of blinding, short follow-up and a small number of participants. Given that the primary benefit in leadless pacing here is improvement in lifetime risk profile, observational studies with longer-term follow up, in the region of 5–10 years, will be useful in guiding whether devices, such as Micra, should become a standard of care in selected patients in this cohort where the decision to implant a pacing device has been made.

Leadless Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Not only has CRT become a widespread treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure in the past two decades following seminal trials demonstrating improved mortality in these patients, but the indications are ever expanding, with CRT having now shown benefit in patients with moderate LV dysfunction and a high RV pacing burden and in those who have had AV node ablation.23,33–35 With increasing indications, there has also been an expansion of the cohort that may require leadless CRT. Over 4% of all CRT candidates are unable to receive lead-based CRT systems due to: unfavourable coronary venous anatomy preventing initial LV lead implant; poor upper limb venous access; or a prohibitively high infection risk.36 In addition, there are theories that leadless LV endocardial pacing may be useful in treating CRT non-responders, where treatment with conventional epicardial lead-based CRT systems is impaired by poor LV lead performance or the presence of myocardial scar.37–39

Current RV leadless pacing devices, such as the Micra, have been shown to be too large to be implanted into the LV using computer modelling techniques. Modelling based on cardiac CT images suggests that the Micra would need to be reduced in size by over 40% to be feasible for LV endocardial pacing.40 The only commercially available LV endocardial pacing device is the WiSE-CRT system (EBR Systems).8 This device is commercially available in the European Economic Area and has been given breakthrough device designation by the FDA. The system consists of a battery connected to an ultrasound transmitter, which is implanted subcutaneously at the fourth, fifth or sixth intercostal place, and the receiver electrode, which is implanted in the LV cavity via femoral aortic or trans-septal access (Figure 4).41 The system requires the patient to have a ‘co-implant’ in-situ capable of producing continuous RV pacing, which can be either a conventional transvenous device, or a leadless RV pacing device. The transmitter and battery detect an RV pacing pulse emitted by the co-implant. Within 10 ms of detection of the RV pacing stimulus, the transmitter emits a number of ultrasound pulses to locate the receiver electrode. Once the transmitter is electronically optimally aligned, a longer ultrasound wave is emitted, which is detected and converted to a pacing stimulus by the receiver electrode. This results in LV pacing, and thereby biventricular (BiV) pacing.

The feasibility of using the WiSE-CRT system for delivery of BiV pacing has been tested in observational and registry studies.8,42–45 A meta-analysis of these studies totalling 181 patients reported a procedural success rate of 90.6%, with a clinical response rate of 63% (mean improvement in New York Health Association class of 0.43) and an echocardiographic response rate of 54% (mean improvement in LV ejection fraction of 6.3%).46 It should be noted that the procedure-related complication rate and mortality rate was 23.8% and 2.8%, respectively. The primary life-threatening risk seen was cardiac tamponade, with an incidence of 2.8% (five of 181). Of these five cases, three occurred during the initial WiSE-CRT feasibility study, which was stopped early due to this safety concern.8 The electrode delivery sheath was subsequently redesigned and since then the tamponade rate for this procedure has improved – two out of 167 (1.2%). The most recent observational study of 31 patients reported no pericardial effusions and no procedure-related deaths, suggesting an improved safety profile following a learning curve.43 Results of SOLVE-CRT (NCT02922036), an international multicentre single-arm study of over 150 patients receiving WiSE-CRT are expected in 2023.47

While BiV pacing using an epicardial LV lead is the mainstay of CRT, conduction system pacing (CSP) has become more widespread in recent years. Initially this was in the form of His bundle pacing; however, issues, such as under-sensing and increasing thresholds, may limit its use.48–50 Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) performed by deep penetration of the interventricular septum from an RV approach in an attempt to capture the conduction system has grown increasingly popular, with evidence of good lead performance and heart failure outcomes in early studies.51–57 As such, one area of significant interest is in leadless CSP.

The current generation of leadless RV pacing devices are not designed to provide electrical stimulation to the left bundle system from a right-sided approach. The fixation tines in the Micra system are electrically inert and fan out superficially on deployment, and the outer fixation helix in the Aveir device is similarly electrically inactive.21,58 As such, with the current designs, electrode penetration is not sufficient to reach the left bundle, which runs just under the LV endocardial surface.59 However, LBBAP from the LV aspect has been demonstrated using the WiSE-CRT device.40 The early experience with WiSE-CRT has primarily used a retrograde aortic approach for electrode implantation to target the LV lateral or posterior walls, at an equivalent endocardial position to the location of a conventional epicardial LV lead. However, the development of a trans-septal approach for electrode implantation has given operators the ability to achieve stable positions for deployment on the LV basal septum using deflectable delivery sheaths, such as the FlexCath (Medtronic).60 In a case series, Elliot et al. describe a technique for mapping the septum with a standard decapolar mapping catheter to locate the site of a left bundle potential for electrode deployment.61 Subsequently, further data in this field has been published – histological examination of a porcine model implanted with this technique showed the tines of the WiSE-CRT electrode in close proximity to His-Purkinje tissue, and a case series of eight patients receiving leadless LBBAP demonstrated an improvement in QRS duration with BiV pacing (187.1 ± 33.8 ms versus 149.5 ± 15.7 ms; p=0.009).62 LV-only pacing achieved further QRS reduction (139.8 ± 12.4 ms), suggesting that this may be the best modality moving forward with advancement of the technology – currently, however, the WiSE-CRT system can clinically only provide BiV pacing, with standalone LV pacing only available during device interrogation. The next step in this field would be to perform electroanatomical mapping studies to determine whether CSP is truly achieved by this method as opposed to LV septal myocardial pacing and whether this makes a difference to overall outcomes.

How to Manage Leadless Pacemakers at End of Battery Life

Although the evidence base for leadless pacing is growing, there is no clear consensus on how to manage patients when the devices reach the end of battery life, and this remains an ongoing issue. As the prevalence of leadless devices increases, so will the frequency at which clinicians need to make decisions regarding management in these situations – specifically, whether to retrieve the existing device at the same time as the implantation of the new device. Both human cadaveric and in vivo animal studies have suggested that it is feasible to implant three Micra devices into the RV without device interaction or deterioration in cardiac performance.63,64 While this suggests that retrieval may not be required routinely for end of battery indications, with three devices likely being adequate for the lifespan of many patients with pacing indications, the evidence base for long-term RV performance in the presence of multiple devices is scarce. In an analysis at 24 months follow-up of 989 patients in the Pre-market Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study and the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study, 11 revisions were required (1.4%).65 There were three successful percutaneous removals and these patients received a new Micra implant. There was one death due to aortic valve endocarditis. In the remaining patients, the Micra device was deactivated; however, all participants subsequently received transvenous pacing. As such, no instances of multiple Micras were observed in this registry.

Micra Extraction

Article image

Percutaneous extraction of the Nanostim and Micra devices has been described in observational studies. Dar et al. reported the joint experience of 73 Nanostim and 40 Micra extractions.66 The Nanostim device could be retrieved with a dedicated extraction sheath and these were retrieved with a procedure success rate of 90% at a median time post-implant of 256 days. There is no dedicated retrieval tool for the Micra – extraction is performed via the implant sheath using standard snares to grab both the proximal retrieval pole of the device as well as the distal (RV) portion (Figure 5).67 This can be aided using sheath-in-sheath techniques to introduce smaller steerable sheaths, such as the Agilis NXT model G408319 (Abbott) to aid snaring. There was a 100% reported success rate of Micra extraction using these techniques; however, it must be noted that in this cohort of 40 patients, 20 extractions were performed at less that 24 hours post-implant.66 Further evidence is needed to enable clinicians to balance the risk between extraction and the presence of multiple devices – given the niche nature of this patient cohort and the low frequency of events at short-term follow-up, this data will most likely come in the form of registry studies.

Discussion: the Future of Leadless Pacing

There is certainly growing excitement in the field of leadless pacing. The market is vastly expanding, encouraged by the solid safety and performance profile of the Micra in comparison to transvenous devices. What was initially a field that could only support VVI pacing can now feasibly host a completely leadless CRT-D system by combining leadless RV pacing with a WiSE-CRT device and a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.68 The arrival of leadless atrial devices and the EMPOWER device, which has the capability of providing anti-tachycardia pacing, may further enhance this potential.6,21 Nevertheless, as it stands, leadless systems remain a second-line option for the majority of patients. Their uptake will likely increase gradually with a growing evidence base and education, however, is leadless pacing likely to usurp transvenous pacing soon? Certainly in the realm of VVI pacing this is very possible – we have already seen the trend towards this in the US, and the majority of patients requiring single chamber RV pacing for slow AF, for example, will be of an older demographic and therefore less likely to encounter issues with system revisions and end of battery decisions.

Beyond this, years of further study are needed in more complex pacing modalities. Issues, such as device interaction from different manufacturers, may bring potential problems and having multiple devices whose batteries will reach end of life at different times may expose patients to the need for frequent procedures, despite the adequate battery longevity of each individual device. In addition, the nuanced algorithms which have been developed over decades to improve performance of transvenous pacing are not as mature in the leadless devices and it is unknown how this will affect performance and patient symptoms in the long term. For now, it is exciting that the field is expanding its reach, and it will soon be feasible to provide any form of leadless pacing therapy, whether it be single chamber, dual chamber, CRT or defibrillators, to patients where transvenous pacing is not an option. Gradual expansion of the available data on long-term performance and extraction, as well as technological advancement in device size and battery technology may facilitate these innovative devices moving into the realms of first-line therapy in the years and decades to come.

Clinical Perspective

  • For a decade, leadless right ventricular (RV) pacing has been in practice for those patients where conventional transvenous pacing has not been an option.
  • Data from Micra-IDE and the Micra Post-Approval Registry has demonstrated a good safety profile of leadless RV pacing compared to transvenous pacing, largely due to the elimination of pocket-related complications.
  • While the electrical performance of leadless pacemakers is excellent, atrioventricular synchrony algorithms may under-perform in active patients at high heart rates. Novel devices such as the Aveir atrial leadless pacemaker may address this.
  • The WiSE-CRT system has good feasibility data on providing cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) using leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This system may also be used to provide conduction system pacing in the future.
  • More evidence on device management at end of battery life and extraction will be needed for leadless pacing to be truly considered a viable first-line therapy option.

References

  1. Bernard ML. Pacing without wires: leadless cardiac pacing. Ochsner J 2016;16:238–42.
    PubMed
  2. Sperzel J, Hamm C, Hain A. Nanostim-leadless pacemaker. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol 2018;29:327–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Tjong FVY, Knops RE, Neuzil P, et al. Midterm safety and performance of a leadless cardiac pacemaker: 3-year follow-up to the LEADLESS trial (Nanostim safety and performance trial for a leadless cardiac pacemaker system). Circulation 2018;137:633–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Ritter P, Duray GZ, Steinwender C, et al. Early performance of a miniaturized leadless cardiac pacemaker: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study. Eur Heart J 2015;36:2510–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Medtronic 2022 Performance Report. https://wwwp.medtronic.com/productperformance-files/Issue_87_MDT_CRM_PPR_2022_2nd_Edition_with_Micra.pdf (accessed 28 March 2023).
  6. Tjong FVY, Koop BE. The modular cardiac rhythm management system: the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and the EMBLEM subcutaneous ICD. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol 2018;29:355–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Han JJ. The Aveir leadless pacing system receives FDA approval. Artif Organs 2022;46:1219–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace 2014;16:681–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Reynolds D, Duray GZ, Omar R, et al. A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. N Engl J Med 2016;374:533–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Roberts PR, Clementy N, al Samadi F, et al. A leadless pacemaker in the real-world setting: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-approval Registry. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:1375–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Cantillon DJ, Dukkipati SR, Ip JH, et al. Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers. Heart Rhythm 2018;15:1023–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Vamos M, Erath JW, Benz AP, et al. Incidence of cardiac perforation with conventional and with leadless pacemaker systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2017;28:336–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Piccini J, Cunnane R, Steffel J, et al. Development and validation of a risk score for predicting pericardial effusion in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker. EP Europace 2022;24:1119–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Haddadin F, Majmundar M, Jabri A, et al. Clinical outcomes and predictors of complications in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:1289–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Piccini JP, Stromberg K, Jackson KP, et al. Long-term outcomes in leadless Micra transcatheter pacemakers with elevated thresholds at implantation: results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Global Clinical Trial. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:685–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Duray GZ, Ritter P, El-Chami M, et al. Long-term performance of a transcatheter pacing system: 12-month results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:702–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Chinitz L, Ritter P, Khelae SK, et al. Accelerometer-based atrioventricular synchronous pacing with a ventricular leadless pacemaker: results from the Micra atrioventricular feasibility studies. Heart Rhythm 2018;15:1363–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Mitacchione G, Schiavone M, Gasperetti A, et al. Atrioventricular synchronous leadless pacemaker: state of art and broadened indications. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2021;22:395–401.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Garweg C, Khelae SK, Steinwender C, et al. Predictors of atrial mechanical sensing and atrioventricular synchrony with a leadless ventricular pacemaker: results from the MARVEL 2 study. Heart Rhythm 2020;17:2037–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Vatterott PJ, Eggen MD, Hilpisch KE, et al. Implant, performance, and retrieval of an atrial leadless pacemaker in sheep. Heart Rhythm 2021;18:288–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Rashtian M, Banker RS, Neuzil P, et al. Preclinical safety and electrical performance of novel atrial leadless pacemaker with dual-helix fixation. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:776–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Wazni O, Wilkoff BL. Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016;13:221–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2021;42:3427–520.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Vamos M, Honold J, Duray GZ, Hohnloser SH. MICRA leadless pacemaker on autopsy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2016;2:636–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Kypta A, Blessberger H, Lichtenauer M, Steinwender C. Complete encapsulation of a leadless cardiac pacemaker. Clin Res Cardiol 2016;105:94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. El-Chami MF, Soejima K, Piccini JP, et al. Incidence and outcomes of systemic infections in patients with leadless pacemakers: data from the Micra IDE study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2019;42:1105–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. El-Chami MF, Johansen JB, Zaidi A, et al. Leadless pacemaker implant in patients with pre-existing infections: results from the Micra postapproval registry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2019;30:569–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Barrett N, Spencer S,McIvor J, Brown EA. Subclavian stenosis: a major complication of subclavian dialysis catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1988;3:423–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Asif A, Salman L, Carrillo RG, et al. ASDIN: patency rates for angioplasty in the treatment of pacemaker-induced central venous stenosis in hemodialysis patients: results of a multi-center study. Semin Dial 2009;22:671–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Asif A, Carrillo R, Garisto JD, et al. Epicardial cardiac rhythm devices for dialysis patients: minimizing the risk of infection and preserving central veins. Semin Dial 2012;25:88–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. El-Chami MF, Clementy N, Garweg C, et al. Leadless pacemaker implantation in hemodialysis patients: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2019;5:162–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Roberts PR, Pepper C, Rinaldi CA, et al. The use of a single chamber leadless pacemaker for the treatment of cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2019;23:100349.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. McAlister FA, Ezekowitz J, Hooton N, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review. JAMA 2007;297:2502–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Curtis AB, Worley SJ, Adamson PB, et al. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1585–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Brignole M, Pentimalli F, Palmisano P, et al. AV junction ablation and cardiac resynchronization for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS: the APAF-CRT mortality trial. Eur Heart J 2021;42:4731–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Gamble JHP, Herring N, Ginks M, et al. Procedural success of left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2016;2:69–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Wong JA, Yee R, Stirrat J, et al. Influence of pacing site characteristics on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:542–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Mendonca Costa C, Neic A, Kerfoot E, et al. Pacing in proximity to scar during cardiac resynchronization therapy increases local dispersion of repolarization and susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmogenesis. Heart Rhythm 2019;16:1475–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Padeletti L, Pieragnoli P, Ricciardi G, et al. Acute hemodynamic effect of left ventricular endocardial pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: assessment by pressure-volume loops. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2012;5:460–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Razeghi O, Strocchi M, Lee A, et al. Tracking the motion of intracardiac structures aids the development of future leadless pacing systems. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020;31:2431–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Wijesuriya N, Elliott MK, Mehta V, et al. Leadless left bundle branch area pacing in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: advances, challenges and future directions. Front Physiol 2022;13:908.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Reddy VY, Miller MA, Neuzil P, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with wireless left ventricular endocardial pacing the SELECT-LV study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2119–29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Okabe T, Hummel JD, Bank AJ, et al. Leadless left ventricular stimulation with WiSE-CRT System – initial experience and results from phase I of SOLVE-CRT study (nonrandomized, roll-in phase). Heart Rhythm 2022;19:22–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Carabelli A, Jabeur M, Jacon P, et al. European experience with a first totally leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker system. Europace 2021;23:740–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Sieniewicz BJ, Betts TR, James S, et al. Real-world experience of leadless left ventricular endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy: a multicenter international registry of the WiSE-CRT pacing system. Heart Rhythm 2020;17:1291–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Wijesuriya N, Elliott MK, Mehta V, et al. Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:1176–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Singh JP, Walsh MN, Kubo SH, et al. Modified design of stimulation of the left ventricular endocardium for cardiac resynchronization therapy in nonresponders, previously untreatable and high-risk upgrade patients (SOLVE-CRT) trial. Am Heart J 2021;235:158–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Bhatt AG, Musat DL, Milstein N, et al. The efficacy of His bundle pacing: lessons learned from implementation for the first time at an experienced electrophysiology center. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2018;4:1397–406.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Vijayaraman P, Chung MK, Dandamudi G, et al. His bundle pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:927–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Lustgarten DL, Sharma PS, Vijayaraman P. Troubleshooting and programming considerations for His bundle pacing. Heart Rhythm 2019;16:654–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Padala SK, Ellenbogen KA. Left bundle branch pacing is the best approach to physiological pacing. Heart Rhythm 2020;1:59–67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Huang W, Wu S, Vijayaraman P, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy using left bundle branch pacing. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2020;6:849–58.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Li Y, Yan L, Dai Y, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in patients indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace 2020;22:ii54–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. de Pooter J, Ozpak E, Calle S, et al. Initial experience of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven pacing leads: a multicenter study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2022;33:1540–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Vijayaraman P, Ponnusamy SS, Cano Ó, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2021;7:135–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Tan JL, Lee JZ, Terrigno V, et al. Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. CJC Open 2021;3:1282–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Vijayaraman P, Herweg B, Verma A, et al. Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:1272–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Bonner M, Eggen M, Haddad T, et al. Early performance and safety of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker in pigs. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2015;38:1248–59.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Padala SK, Cabrera JA, Ellenbogen KA. Anatomy of the cardiac conduction system. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2021;44:15–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Sieniewicz BJ, Gould JS, Rimington HM, et al. Transseptal delivery of a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing electrode. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2017;3:1333–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Elliott MK, Jacon P, Sidhu BS, et al. Technical feasibility of leadless left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: a case series. Eur Heart J Case Rep 2021;5:ytab379.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Elliott MK, Vergara P, Wijesuriya N, et al. Feasibility of leadless left ventricular septal pacing with the WiSE-CRT system to target the left bundle branch area: a porcine model and multicenter patient experience. Heart Rhythm 2022;19:1974–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Omdahl P, Eggen MD, Bonner MD, et al. Right ventricular anatomy can accommodate multiple Micra transcatheter pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2016;39:393–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Chen K, Zheng X, Dai Y, et al. Multiple leadless pacemakers implanted in the right ventricle of swine. Europace 2016;18:1748–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Grubman E, Ritter P, Ellis CR, et al. To retrieve, or not to retrieve: system revisions with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:1801–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Dar T, Akella K, Murtaza G, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of Nanostim and Micra transcatheter leadless pacemaker (LP) extractions: a multicenter experience. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2020;57:133–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Karim S, Abdelmessih M, Marieb M, et al. Extraction of a Micra transcatheter Pacing System: first-in-human experience. HeartRhythm Case Rep 2016;2:60–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Sidhu BS, Gould J, Porter B, et al. Completely leadless cardiac resynchronization defibrillator system. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2020;6:588–9.
    Crossref | PubMed