Sugrue, A M

ABSTRACT Background Patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis have an increased risk of pacemaker‐related complications due to limited vascular access and increased susceptibility to infection. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) may mitigate these risks compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TPMs), but long‐term comparative data in this population remain limited. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, including adults (≥ 18 years) with ESRD on dialysis who underwent LPM or TPM implantation between May 2016 and December 2020. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes assessed over up to 5 years included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, device re‐intervention, device‐related complications, infection‐related hospitalization, pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy, and all‐cause mortality. Results After matching, 901 patients were included in each group with well‐balanced baseline characteristics. LPM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of device re‐intervention compared with TPM (4.1% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.69; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in all‐cause hospitalization (65.5% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.22), heart failure hospitalization (26.9% vs. 30.2%; p = 0.13), all‐cause mortality (37.5% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.34), device‐related complications (14.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.94), infection‐related hospitalization (1.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.35), or pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy (9.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.66). Conclusion In a large, propensity‐matched cohort of patients with ESRD on dialysis, LPMs were associated with fewer device re‐interventions and comparable long‐term clinical outcomes compared with TPMs.

Abstract Background The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD) was designed to avoid lead-related complications associated with transvenous systems and deliver features such as anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and reduced generator size that provide an advantage over a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). As such, the EV-ICD is an attractive alternative for younger patients with genetic heart diseases (GHDs) who are not in need of permanent pacing. Objective To examine the indications, complications, and the clinical outcomes of patients with GHDs who received an EV-ICD. Methods A retrospective review of the electronic record was done for all GHD patients evaluated in genetic heart rhythm and/or cardiomyopathy clinics who had an EV-ICD implanted between 1/2021 and 2/2025. Basic demographic, ICD indications, complications, and therapy data were then extracted for all study patients. Results Overall, 23 patients (35% female; mean age 39 ± 16 years; 61% with a disease-causative genetic variant; mean LVEF 57%) with an underlying GHD (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 9, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy in 8, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation in 3, dilated cardiomyopathy in 2, and long QT syndrome in 1) had an EV-ICD implanted. For the majority, an EV-ICD was implanted for primary prevention (15/23; 65%) and represented their first ICD system (21/23; 91%). The success rate of the procedure was 96% with only one abandoned procedure because of poor R-wave sensing. Inadvertent intraprocedural lead placement in the pericardial space occurred in 1 patient with previous thoracotomy and surgically placed epicardial lead without sequelae or need for revision. Over a mean follow-up of 8±9 months, the rate of complications was low (1/23; 4%) with one electrode displacement and this patient underwent defibrillation threshold testing (DFT), the device properly detected VF and emitted a successful shock 30 J. Thus far, 2 patients have received appropriate VT/VF-terminating therapies (3 ICD shocks, 0 ATP) with successful conversion to sinus rhythm. One patient died following an electrical storm. One patient had 3 inappropriate ICD shock for sinus tachycardia while exercising followed by 1 successful shock for VF. Conclusion In this early experience, EV-ICDs appear to be safe and effective in younger patients with genetic arrhythmogenic and hypertrophic cardiomyopathies. Future studies are needed to better understand the utility of EV-ICDs in patients with cardiac channelopathies and advantages of EV-ICDs over transvenous and S-ICD systems in patients with an array of sudden death-predisposing GHDs.