We have located links that may give you full text access.
Early trends in leadless pacemaker implantation: Evaluating nationwide in-hospital outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Single-chamber leadless intracardiac pacemaker (LICP) implantation was approved in 2016 in the United States. However, little is known regarding trends in real-world utilization and complication rates.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess nationwide demographics, trends, and outcomes among hospitalizations with LICP implantation in the United States.
METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified all hospitalizations with LICP or transvenous pacemaker implantation as a comparator between 2017 and 2019. We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, admitting diagnoses, procedural complications, lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: The majority of LICP recipients were elderly (75.4 ± 12.8 years), male (55.2%), and White (76.8%) compared to Black (9.8%), or Hispanic (7.3%). Between 2017 and 2019, the average age increased along with the prevalence of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and malignancy among recipients. Most hospitalizations were emergent (84.5%). Between 2017 and 2019, pooled procedural complications decreased significantly (10.8% vs 7.9%; P <.001), primarily due to declining infection and device retrieval rates. In-hospital mortality also decreased significantly (8.2% vs 4.2%; P <.001). History of cardiogenic shock or cardiac device infection was associated with the greatest mortality or complication risk. Compared to transvenous pacemaker, LICP implantation was associated with lower complication rates (8.6% vs 11.2%) but greater mortality (5.2% vs 1.3%; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: Nationwide LICP implantations were performed in patients of increasing age, comorbidities, and acuity of illness. In-hospital mortality and procedure-related complications declined in the first 3 years after approval of LICP implantation and may reflect improving operator experience. Increased mortality compared with transvenous pacemaker implant remains a concern.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess nationwide demographics, trends, and outcomes among hospitalizations with LICP implantation in the United States.
METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified all hospitalizations with LICP or transvenous pacemaker implantation as a comparator between 2017 and 2019. We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, admitting diagnoses, procedural complications, lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: The majority of LICP recipients were elderly (75.4 ± 12.8 years), male (55.2%), and White (76.8%) compared to Black (9.8%), or Hispanic (7.3%). Between 2017 and 2019, the average age increased along with the prevalence of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and malignancy among recipients. Most hospitalizations were emergent (84.5%). Between 2017 and 2019, pooled procedural complications decreased significantly (10.8% vs 7.9%; P <.001), primarily due to declining infection and device retrieval rates. In-hospital mortality also decreased significantly (8.2% vs 4.2%; P <.001). History of cardiogenic shock or cardiac device infection was associated with the greatest mortality or complication risk. Compared to transvenous pacemaker, LICP implantation was associated with lower complication rates (8.6% vs 11.2%) but greater mortality (5.2% vs 1.3%; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: Nationwide LICP implantations were performed in patients of increasing age, comorbidities, and acuity of illness. In-hospital mortality and procedure-related complications declined in the first 3 years after approval of LICP implantation and may reflect improving operator experience. Increased mortality compared with transvenous pacemaker implant remains a concern.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app