{"title":"在资源有限的情况下无导线心脏起搏:grote Schuur医院使用Micra无导线起搏器的经验","authors":"P. Mkoko, K. Govender, B.V.R. Gouws, A. Chin","doi":"10.24170/17-2-4147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cardiac pacemakers improve survival and quality of life in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. However, conventional pacemakers carry a small risk of both acute and chronic lead and pacemaker generator complications. Leadless pacemakers negate these risks by not having a pacing lead and a subcutaneous generator. We report our Groote Schuur Hospital experience with the Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS). Methods: We report a consecutive case series of patients that received the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker, a single chamber ventricular pacemaker, is inserted using a TPS via the femoral vein into the right ventricle. Implantation data were obtained, and medical records were reviewed for the 6 weeks and 1-year follow-up visits. Results: A total of 5 patients were implanted with a Micra leadless pacemaker from 11 March 2015 - 2 November 2016. Four patients were male and 1 female, with an average age of 64 years. Four patients received the pacemaker for a second- or third-degree AV block and 1 patient received the pacemaker for unexplained syncope and right bundle branch block. The Micra leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in all patients with no acute implantationrelated complications. One-year follow-up was available for 4 patients with good pacing thresholds, sensitivity and impedance. One patient demised after 9 months post Micra implantation due to unrelated causes (acute myeloid leukaemia). Conclusion: The Micra leadless pacing system is safe and effective and shows good short-term results in a real-world, resource-limited setting. This form of pacing offers a viable option for patients who require pacing for AV block, especially in patients with vascular access problems or who are at high risk of lead or pacemaker generator complications.","PeriodicalId":55781,"journal":{"name":"SA Heart Journal","volume":"522 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leadless cardiac pacing in resource limited settings: A Groote Schuur hospital experience with the Micra leadless pacemaker\",\"authors\":\"P. Mkoko, K. Govender, B.V.R. Gouws, A. Chin\",\"doi\":\"10.24170/17-2-4147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Cardiac pacemakers improve survival and quality of life in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. However, conventional pacemakers carry a small risk of both acute and chronic lead and pacemaker generator complications. Leadless pacemakers negate these risks by not having a pacing lead and a subcutaneous generator. We report our Groote Schuur Hospital experience with the Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS). Methods: We report a consecutive case series of patients that received the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker, a single chamber ventricular pacemaker, is inserted using a TPS via the femoral vein into the right ventricle. Implantation data were obtained, and medical records were reviewed for the 6 weeks and 1-year follow-up visits. Results: A total of 5 patients were implanted with a Micra leadless pacemaker from 11 March 2015 - 2 November 2016. Four patients were male and 1 female, with an average age of 64 years. Four patients received the pacemaker for a second- or third-degree AV block and 1 patient received the pacemaker for unexplained syncope and right bundle branch block. The Micra leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in all patients with no acute implantationrelated complications. One-year follow-up was available for 4 patients with good pacing thresholds, sensitivity and impedance. One patient demised after 9 months post Micra implantation due to unrelated causes (acute myeloid leukaemia). Conclusion: The Micra leadless pacing system is safe and effective and shows good short-term results in a real-world, resource-limited setting. This form of pacing offers a viable option for patients who require pacing for AV block, especially in patients with vascular access problems or who are at high risk of lead or pacemaker generator complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SA Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\"522 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SA Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24170/17-2-4147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24170/17-2-4147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Leadless cardiac pacing in resource limited settings: A Groote Schuur hospital experience with the Micra leadless pacemaker
Background: Cardiac pacemakers improve survival and quality of life in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. However, conventional pacemakers carry a small risk of both acute and chronic lead and pacemaker generator complications. Leadless pacemakers negate these risks by not having a pacing lead and a subcutaneous generator. We report our Groote Schuur Hospital experience with the Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS). Methods: We report a consecutive case series of patients that received the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker, a single chamber ventricular pacemaker, is inserted using a TPS via the femoral vein into the right ventricle. Implantation data were obtained, and medical records were reviewed for the 6 weeks and 1-year follow-up visits. Results: A total of 5 patients were implanted with a Micra leadless pacemaker from 11 March 2015 - 2 November 2016. Four patients were male and 1 female, with an average age of 64 years. Four patients received the pacemaker for a second- or third-degree AV block and 1 patient received the pacemaker for unexplained syncope and right bundle branch block. The Micra leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in all patients with no acute implantationrelated complications. One-year follow-up was available for 4 patients with good pacing thresholds, sensitivity and impedance. One patient demised after 9 months post Micra implantation due to unrelated causes (acute myeloid leukaemia). Conclusion: The Micra leadless pacing system is safe and effective and shows good short-term results in a real-world, resource-limited setting. This form of pacing offers a viable option for patients who require pacing for AV block, especially in patients with vascular access problems or who are at high risk of lead or pacemaker generator complications.