Search

Abstract: The field of cardiac pacing has been defined by constant development to provide efficacious, safe, and reliable therapy. Traditional pacing utilizes transvenous leads, which dwell in the venous system and place patients at risk for complications, including pneumothorax, bleeding, infection, vascular obstruction, and valvular compromise. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing while providing safe and effective pacing therapy for an increasing population of patients. The Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system was approved by the FDA in April of 2016 and the Abbott Aveir pacemaker was approved in April of 2022. Several additional leadless pacemakers are in various stages of development and testing. There exists limited guidance on the selection of the ideal candidate for leadless pacemakers. Advantages of leadless pacemakers include decreased infection risk, overcoming limited vascular access, and avoidance of interaction with the tricuspid valve apparatus. Disadvantages of leadless pacemakers include right ventricular-only pacing, unclear lifecycle management, cost, perforation risk, and lack of integration with defibrillator systems. This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art of leadless pacemakers, currently approved systems, clinical trials and real-world evidence, considerations for patient selection, and future directions of this promising technology

As targeted treatments for amyloid transthyretin cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) are becoming available, we aim to characterize the rates of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) utilization, and their impact on survival.This is a retrospective cohort study of 130 patients with ATTR-CM diagnosed at Emory University's Cardiac Amyloidosis Center between April 2012 and September 2020. VAs were defined as nonsustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation.Of 130 patients, 42 had wild-type disease (wtATTR) and 88 had hereditary variants (hATTR), most commonly Val122Ile (89%). At ATTR-CM diagnosis, 80 (62%) patients had EF ≤ 40% consistent with systolic heart failure. Of the 69 (53%) patients with documented VAs significantly higher rates occurred among those with EF ≤ 40% compared with EF 40% (67% vs. 28%, p = .001). Thirty-two patients (25 hATTR, 7 wtATTR) had primary prevention ICDs implanted. Eight (25%) of these patients received appropriate ICD therapy while two (6%) experienced inappropriate therapy. Comparing patients with EF ≤ 35% with and without ICDs did not reveal any survival difference (3.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 years, p = .699).High rates of VAs and appropriate ICD therapy were found among a unique cohort of largely hereditary ATTR-CM patients with a high rate of systolic heart failure.