Premium
Leadless pacing: Going for the jugular
Author(s) -
SaleemTalib Shmaila,
Driel Vincent J.,
Chaldoupi SevastiMaria,
Nikolic Tanja,
Wessel Harry,
Borleffs C. Jan Willem,
Ramanna Hemanth
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.13607
Subject(s) - medicine , fluoroscopy , implant , atrial fibrillation , ejection fraction , ablation , cardiology , lead (geology) , internal jugular vein , jugular vein , surgery , heart failure , geomorphology , geology
Background Leadless pacing is generally performed from a femoral approach. However, the femoral route is not always available. Until now, data regarding implantation using a jugular approach other than a single‐case report were lacking. Methods The case records of all patients who underwent internal jugular venous (IJV) leadless pacemaker implantation (Micra, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) at our center were analyzed retrospectively. Results Nineteen patients underwent IJV leadless pacemaker implantation, nine females, mean age of 77.5 ±9.6 years; permanent atrial fibrillation in all patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Implant indication was atrioventricular conduction disturbance in 10, pre‐AV node ablation in seven, and replacement of a conventional VVI pacemaker in two (infection in one and lead malfunction in the other). The device was positioned at the superior septum in seven patients, apicoseptal in seven patients, and midseptal in five patients. In 12 patients, a sufficient device position was obtained at the first attempt, in three at the second, in one at the third, in one at the fourth, and in two at the sixth attempt. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.39V at 0.24‐ms pulse width, sensed amplitude was 9.1 ± 3.2 mV, mean fluoroscopy duration was 3.1 ± 1.6 min. There were no vascular or other complications. At follow‐up, electrical parameters remained stable in 18 of 19 patients. Conclusion Although experience is minimal, we suggest that the IJV approach is safe and may be considered in patients where the femoral approach is contraindicated.