Keywords
Introduction
Case report


Discussion
Uncited reference
Supplementary Data
Reference
Linh Ngo, Daniel Nour, Russell A Denman, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Leadless Pacemakers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jul 6; 10(13): e019212.
Paul R Roberts, Nicolas Clementy, Faisal Al Samadi, et al. A leadless pacemaker in the real-world setting: The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry. Heart Rhythm. 2017 Sep; 14(9): 1375-1379.
- Incidence and predictors of short- and long-term complications in pacemaker therapy: the FOLLOWPACE study.Heart Rhythm. 2012 May; 9: 728-735
Tjong FVY, Knops RE, Udo EO, et al. Leadless pacemaker versus transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy: A propensity score-matched analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep; 15(9): 1387-1393.
Article info
Publication history
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
Conflict of interest: None.
KEY TEACHING POINTS
The selection of LLPM or TVPM for the treatment of bradycardia is an important issue. TVPM is still associated with a significant number of complications, mostly related to the transvenous lead or subcutaneous pocket and LLPM has overcome these related concerns.
Although the use of the currently available LLPM systems appears to result in a lower rate of device dislodgement, the most common reason for dislodgement of LLPM is poor tine fixation.
While extremely rare and the specific mechanism is unclear, dislodgement and pacing failure of the LLPM due to tine fracture should also be noted.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy