Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palmisano, Pietro, Facchin, Domenico, Ziacchi, Matteo, Nigro, Gerardo, Nicosia, Antonino, Bongiorni, Maria Grazia, Tomasi, Luca, Rossi, Andrea, De Filippo, Paolo, Sgarito, Giuseppe, Verlato, Roberto, Di Silvestro, Michele, Iacopino, Saverio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10103553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36036679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac112
_version_ 1785025876412334080
author Palmisano, Pietro
Facchin, Domenico
Ziacchi, Matteo
Nigro, Gerardo
Nicosia, Antonino
Bongiorni, Maria Grazia
Tomasi, Luca
Rossi, Andrea
De Filippo, Paolo
Sgarito, Giuseppe
Verlato, Roberto
Di Silvestro, Michele
Iacopino, Saverio
author_facet Palmisano, Pietro
Facchin, Domenico
Ziacchi, Matteo
Nigro, Gerardo
Nicosia, Antonino
Bongiorni, Maria Grazia
Tomasi, Luca
Rossi, Andrea
De Filippo, Paolo
Sgarito, Giuseppe
Verlato, Roberto
Di Silvestro, Michele
Iacopino, Saverio
author_sort Palmisano, Pietro
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10103553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101035532023-04-15 Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis Palmisano, Pietro Facchin, Domenico Ziacchi, Matteo Nigro, Gerardo Nicosia, Antonino Bongiorni, Maria Grazia Tomasi, Luca Rossi, Andrea De Filippo, Paolo Sgarito, Giuseppe Verlato, Roberto Di Silvestro, Michele Iacopino, Saverio Europace Clinical Research 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. Oxford University Press 2022-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10103553/ /pubmed/36036679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac112 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Palmisano, Pietro
Facchin, Domenico
Ziacchi, Matteo
Nigro, Gerardo
Nicosia, Antonino
Bongiorni, Maria Grazia
Tomasi, Luca
Rossi, Andrea
De Filippo, Paolo
Sgarito, Giuseppe
Verlato, Roberto
Di Silvestro, Michele
Iacopino, Saverio
Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title_full Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title_fullStr Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title_full_unstemmed Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title_short Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis
title_sort rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an italian multicentre large population analysis
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10103553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36036679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac112
work_keys_str_mv AT palmisanopietro rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT facchindomenico rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT ziacchimatteo rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT nigrogerardo rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT nicosiaantonino rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT bongiornimariagrazia rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT tomasiluca rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT rossiandrea rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT defilippopaolo rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT sgaritogiuseppe rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT verlatoroberto rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT disilvestromichele rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis
AT iacopinosaverio rateandnatureofcomplicationswithleadlesstranscatheterpacemakerscomparedwithtransvenouspacemakersresultsfromanitalianmulticentrelargepopulationanalysis