Leadless pacemaker - lead parameters stability and battery longevity in the mid-term follow-up

Abstract Background A leadless pacemaker (L-PM) has been designed to avoid the need for a pacemaker pocket and transvenous lead. Long-term safety will largely depend on the need for replacements, mainly due to battery depletion (end-of-life). While the mean L-PM battery longevity predicted by the manufacturer is 12 years, real-world longevity data are still scarce. We aimed to describe L-PM parameters’ stability and battery longevity during the mid-term follow-up. Methods Single-center registry of consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation from May 2015 to November 2023. Procedural characteristics, lead parameters and battery longevity were collected immediately after implantation and during the most recent follow-up visit. Results Overall, 261 consecutive patients had a transcatheter L-PM implanted through a femoral vein (mean age 78±10 years; 66% male). Mean procedural duration was 44±28min and fluoroscopy time was 4,4±3,9min. The device was successfully implanted in all but one patient. The main indications for permanent pacing were high-degree atrioventricular block [N=130 (50%)], atrial fibrillation with pauses [N=78 (30%)], and sinus node disease [N=28 (11%)]. Immediately after implantation, three cases (1,2%) of pericardial effusion (one with tamponade) were reported. In one case (0,4%), a conventional pacemaker was implanted due to L-PM acute dysfunction. No other procedure-related complications, including dislodgment, were reported at discharge. After a mean follow-up of 2,8±1,7years, the pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude remained stable [0,67mV vs. 0,62mV (p=0,9); and 10,3mV vs. 16,1mV (p<0,001), respectively] and mean ventricular pacing was 54±38%. Expected battery longevity was >8 years (maximum value) in 84% of the patients. In the subgroup of patients with >5 years of follow-up (N=20; mean follow up of 6,3±1,8years), the expected battery longevity was >8 years in 85% (N=17) of the patients. In three cases, the L-PM was upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy or left bundle branch area pacing due to pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction. There was one case of L-PM end-of-life 6 years after implant (pacing threshold 0,5mV; ventricular pacing 100%), in which a second L-PM was successfully implanted. Overall, 78 (31%) patients died, a mean of 2,2±1,9 years after L-PM implantation, none related to the device. Conclusion In this real-world cohort, L-PM maintained stable pacing parameters and, in the mid-term follow-up, only one battery depletion was observed while expected longevity remained above 8 years in the large majority of patients. Longer follow up will allow better understanding of both technical and clinical aspects relevant to manage end-of-life devices.Table 1Figure 1