Henrich, Mark

AbstractAimsThe MicraTM transcatheter pacing system (TPS) (Medtronic) is the only leadless pacemaker that promotes atrioventricular (AV) synchrony via accelerometer‐based atrial sensing. Data regarding the real‐world experience with this novel system are scarce. We sought to characterize patients undergoing MicraTM‐AV implants, describe percentage AV synchrony achieved, and analyze the causes for suboptimal AV synchrony.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records from 56 consecutive patients undergoing MicraTM‐AV implants at the Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona with a minimum follow‐up of 3 months were reviewed. Demographic data, comorbidities, echocardiographic data, and clinical outcomes were compared among patients with and without atrial synchronous ventricular pacing (AsVP) ≥ 70%.ResultsSixty‐five percent of patients achieved AsVP ≥ 70%. Patients with adequate AsVP had smaller body mass indices, a lower proportion of congestive heart failure, and prior cardiac surgery. Echocardiographic parameters and procedural characteristics were similar across the two groups. Active device troubleshooting was associated with higher AsVP. The likely reasons for low AsVP were small A4‐wave amplitude, high ventricular pacing burden, and inadequate device reprogramming. Importantly, in patients with low AsVP, subjective clinical worsening was not noted during follow‐up.ConclusionWith the increasing popularity of leadless pacemakers, it is paramount for device implanting teams to be familiar with common predictors of AV synchrony and troubleshooting with MicraTM‐AV devices.

Aims: The MicraTM transcatheter pacing system (TPS) (Medtronic) is the only leadless pacemaker that promotes atrioventricular (AV) synchrony via accelerometer-based atrial sensing. Data regarding the real-world experience with this novel system are currently lacking. We sought to characterize patients undergoing MicraTM -AV implants, describe percentage AV synchrony achieved, and analyze the causes for suboptimal AV synchrony. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records from 56 consecutive patients undergoing MicraTM -AV implants at the Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were reviewed. Demographic data, comorbidities, echocardiographic data, and clinical outcomes were compared among patients with and without atrial synchronous-ventricular pacing (AsVP) ≥70%. Results: Fifty-six percent of patients achieved AsVP ≥70%. Patients with adequate AsVP had smaller body mass indices, a lower proportion of congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Echocardiographic parameters and procedural characteristics were similar across the two groups. Active device troubleshooting was associated with higher AsVP. The likely reasons for low AsVP were persistent atrial arrhythmias, small A4-wave amplitude, and inadequate device reprogramming. Importantly, in patients with low AsVP, subjective clinical worsening was not noted during follow-up. Conclusion: With the increasing popularity of leadless PM, it is paramount for device implanting teams to be familiar with common predictors of AV synchrony and troubleshooting with MicraTM -AV devices.

AbstractIntroductionEmerging medical technology has allowed for monitoring of heart rhythm abnormalities using smartphone compatible devices. The safety and utility of such devices have not been established in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We sought to assess the safety and compatibility of the Food and Drug Administration‐approved AliveCor Kardia device in patients with CIEDs.Methods and ResultsWe prospectively recruited patients with CIED for a Kardia recording during their routine device interrogation. A recording was obtained in paced and nonpaced states. Adverse clinical events were noted at the time of recording. Electrograms (EGMs) from the cardiac device were obtained at the time of recording to assess for any electromagnetic interference (EMI) introduced by Kardia. Recordings were analyzed for quality and given a score of 3 (interpretable rhythm, no noise), 2 (interpretable rhythm, significant noise) or 1 (uninterpretable). A total of 251 patients were recruited (59% with a pacemaker and 41% with ICD). There were no adverse clinical events noted at the time of recording and no changes to CIED settings. Review of all EGMs revealed no EMI introduced by Kardia. Recordings were correctly interpreted in 90% of paced recordings (183 had a score of 3, 43 of 2, and 25 of 1) and 94.7% of nonpaced recordings (147 of 3, 15 of 2, and 9 of 1).ConclusionThe AliveCor Kardia device has an excellent safety profile when used in conjunction with most CIEDs. The quality of recordings was preserved in this population. The device, therefore, can be considered for heart rhythm monitoring in patients with CIEDs.