Parulkar Anshul, Sheikh Wasiq, Has Phinnara, Lhungay Tamara P, Sharma Esseim, Vogt Braden, Lima Fabio V, Ahmed Malik Bilal, Torbey Estelle, Philbin Daniel, Chu Antony F
Corrigan Minehan Heart Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, California, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2025 Jul;36(7):1538-1547. doi: 10.1111/jce.16704. Epub 2025 May 4.
Leadless pacemakers are considered a low-risk alternative to single-lead pacemakers (SL-PPMs). In 2021, the FDA issued a warning regarding leadless pacemakers because of increased morbidity and mortality from perforation. Clinical outcome data is limited. The National Readmissions Database (NRD) is a nationally representative annualized sample of US hospitalizations that may shed insight on patient selection and procedural risks from leadless pacemaker implantation.
Determine patient selection, adverse events and mortality rates related to leadless pacemakers versus SL-PPM using the NRD.
NRD data was analyzed from January 2016 to December 2019. ICD-10 and ICD-CM 10 coding was used to identify patients and adverse outcomes. Predictors of mortality and cardiac perforation were determined by multivariable regression.
Distribution of age and gender were similar between both groups. Patients receiving single-chamber leadless pacemakers were more likely to be dialysis dependent, have diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea. Mortality was higher in leadless pacemakers (5.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes. A multivariable regression model found that dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension increased the risk for mortality in leadless pacemakers while obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes were associated with lower risk. Leadless pacemakers had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.74 and 2.92 for death and perforation respectively.
Mortality rates were higher in patients receiving leadless pacemakers with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with dialysis dependence and pulmonary hypertension. Clinical benefits may be offset by increased risk of procedural mortality and adverse outcomes.
无导线起搏器被认为是单腔起搏器(SL-PPM)的低风险替代方案。2021年,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)因穿孔导致的发病率和死亡率增加,对无导线起搏器发出警告。临床结局数据有限。国家再入院数据库(NRD)是美国住院情况的全国代表性年度样本,可能有助于深入了解无导线起搏器植入的患者选择和手术风险。
使用NRD确定与无导线起搏器和SL-PPM相关的患者选择、不良事件和死亡率。
分析2016年1月至2019年12月的NRD数据。使用国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10)和国际疾病分类临床修正版第十版(ICD-CM 10)编码来识别患者和不良结局。通过多变量回归确定死亡率和心脏穿孔的预测因素。
两组之间年龄和性别的分布相似。接受单腔无导线起搏器的患者更有可能依赖透析、患有糖尿病和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停。无导线起搏器的死亡率更高(5.3%对1.9%,p<0.001),不良结局的发生率也更高。多变量回归模型发现,透析依赖和肺动脉高压增加了无导线起搏器患者的死亡风险,而阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停和糖尿病与较低风险相关。无导线起搏器死亡和穿孔的调整比值比分别为2.74和2.92。
接受无导线起搏器的患者死亡率更高,透析依赖和肺动脉高压患者的不良结局发生率更高。手术死亡率和不良结局风险的增加可能会抵消临床益处。