Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation in patients with mechanical heart valves

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.997-1004
• Main Authors: Loughlin, Gerard, Pachón, Marta, Martínez‐Sande, José Luis, Ibáñez, José Luis, Bastante, Teresa, Osca Asensi, Joaquín, González Melchor, Laila, Martínez‐Martínez, Juan Gabriel, Cuesta, Javier, Arias, Miguel A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antagonists; anticoagulation; Bacteremia; cardiac pacing; Endocarditis; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valves; Heparin; Humans; infection; leadless pacemaker; mechanical heart valve prosthesis; Pacemaker, Artificial - adverse effects; Pacemakers; Patients; Retrospective Studies; Tamponade; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin K
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15462

Introduction Device infections constitute a major complication of transvenous pacemakers. Mechanical heart valves (MHV) increase the risk of infective endocarditis (IE) and pacemaker infection, requiring lifelong vitamin K‐antagonists (VKA), which may affect patient management. Leadless pacemakers (LP) are associated with low infection rates, posing an attractive option in MHV patients requiring permanent pacing. This study describes outcomes following LP implantation in patients with MHV. Methods This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study including consecutive patients implanted with an LP at 5 centers between June 2015 and January 2020. Procedural outcomes, antithrombotic management, complications, performance during follow‐up and episodes of bacteremia and IE were compared between patients with and without an MHV (MHV and non‐MHV groups). Results Four hundred fifty‐nine patients were included (74 in the MHV group, 16.1%, and 385 in the non‐MHV group, 83.9%). Procedural outcomes and acute electrical performance were comparable between groups. Vascular complications and cardiac perforation occurred in 2.7 versus 2.3% (p = 1) and 0% versus 0.8% (p = 1) in the MHV group and non‐MHV group. One case of IE occurred in the MHV group and 2 in the non‐MHV group. In MHV patients, uninterrupted VKA was used in 83.8%, whereas 16.2% were heparin‐bridged. Vascular complication or tamponade occurred in 1 (8.3%) MHV heparin‐bridged patient versus 1 (1.6%) MHV uninterrupted VKA patient (p = .3). Conclusion LP implantation outcomes in MHV patients are comparable to the general LP population. Device‐related infections are rare following LP implantation, including in patients with MHV. In the MHV group, periprocedural anticoagulation management was not associated with significantly different rates of tamponade or vascular complication.