Leadless pacemaker implantation in patients with a prior conventional pacing system

Background:Leadless pacing has been established as an alternative approach to transvenous devices for selected patients. Often, leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation is a de novo procedure, but in an increasing number of patients, an LP is used after previous implantation of a conventional pacing system (CPS). Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted of the efficacy and safety of LP implantation in the context of a previously implanted CPS, from 2 large Swiss centres. Results:A total of 257 consecutive patients undergoing LP implantation were included. They were divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 233 patients who did not have a previous CPS, and group 2 consisted of 24 patients with an in situ CPS. In group 2, a total of 20 patients (83%) required transvenous lead extraction due to infection, malfunction, or other reasons. In 3 patients with device-related infection, lead extraction and LP implantation was performed as a single procedure, whereas in the remaining 11 cases, a time window occurred between the 2 procedures (median: 11.5 days; range: 2-186 days). Electrical device parameters at implantation and during follow-up did not differ between the 2 groups (mean: 12.5 ± 9.3 months). Eight major periprocedural complications (3.1%) were encountered (4 pericardial effusions, 3 instances of femoral bleeding, and 1 instance of intra-abdominal bleeding) in the entire cohort within a 30-day period. No complications occurred in the group with a previous device. No infections were registered, even when complete extraction of an infected CPS was performed prior to LP implantation. Conclusions:Implantation of an LP in patients with a prior CPS (with or without extraction of the previous system) was effective and safe in our population of patients.