Beurskens Niek Eg, Tjong Fleur Vy, Knops Reinoud E
AMC Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2017 Aug;6(3):129-133. doi: 10.15420/aer.2017:16:1.
The clinically available leadless pacemakers for patients with a single-chamber pacing indication have shown to be safe and effective. However, the optimal end-of-life strategy of this novel technique is undefined. Suggested strategies comprise of (a) placing an additional leadless device adjacent to the leadless pacemaker, or (b) retrieving the non-functioning leadless pacemaker and subsequently implanting a new device. Although initial studies demonstrate promising results, early experience of acute and mid-term retrieval feasibility and safety remains mixed. We suggest that the approach of leadless pacemaker retrieval is more appealing to limit the amount of non-functioning intracardiac hardware. In addition, potential risks for device-device interference, and unknown long-term complications associated with multiple intracardiac devices are prevented. The potential inability to retrieve chronically implanted leadless pacemakers limits the application of this novel technology. Therefore, long-term prospective analysis is required to define the most optimal end-of-life strategy.
对于有单腔起搏指征的患者,临床可用的无导线起搏器已被证明是安全有效的。然而,这种新技术的最佳使用寿命终止策略尚不清楚。建议的策略包括:(a) 在无导线起搏器旁边植入一个额外的无导线装置,或(b) 取出失效的无导线起搏器,随后植入一个新装置。尽管初步研究显示出有前景的结果,但急性和中期取出的可行性和安全性的早期经验仍喜忧参半。我们认为,无导线起搏器取出的方法更具吸引力,因为它可以减少心脏内无功能硬件的数量。此外,还可以避免设备间干扰的潜在风险以及与多个心脏内装置相关的未知长期并发症。长期植入的无导线起搏器可能无法取出,这限制了这项新技术的应用。因此,需要进行长期前瞻性分析来确定最佳的使用寿命终止策略。