loading page

Leadless pacemakers in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing; a multicenter international study.
  • +13
  • Nicolas Clementy,
  • Roxane Coelho,
  • Christian Veltmann,
  • Eloi Marijon,
  • Jose Maria Tolosana,
  • Vincent Galand,
  • Sylvain Ploux,
  • Romain Eschalier,
  • Edouard Simeon,
  • Hermann Blessberger,
  • Johanna Müller-Leisse,
  • Margarida Pujol-Lopez,
  • Raphael Martins,
  • Philippe Ritter,
  • Clemens Steinwender,
  • Dominique Babuty
Nicolas Clementy
CHU Trousseau

Corresponding Author:nclementy@yahoo.fr

Author Profile
Roxane Coelho
CHU Trousseau
Author Profile
Christian Veltmann
Hannover Medical School
Author Profile
Eloi Marijon
Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou
Author Profile
Jose Maria Tolosana
Hospital Clinic, Universitat de Barcelona;
Author Profile
Vincent Galand
CHU Rennes
Author Profile
Sylvain Ploux
CHU Bordeaux, Hopital Haut Leveque
Author Profile
Romain Eschalier
Clermont Université
Author Profile
Edouard Simeon
Institut Mutualiste Montsouris
Author Profile
Hermann Blessberger
Linz General Hospital
Author Profile
Johanna Müller-Leisse
Hannover Medical School
Author Profile
Margarida Pujol-Lopez
Hospital Clinic de Barcelona
Author Profile
Raphael Martins
CHU Rennes
Author Profile
Philippe Ritter
CHU de Bordeaux Hôpital Cardiologique
Author Profile
Clemens Steinwender
Johannes Kepler Universitat Linz
Author Profile
Dominique Babuty
François Rabelais University
Author Profile


Background: Temporary transvenous pacing in critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing is associated with a high risk of complications. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of self-contained intracardiac leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in this population. Methods and Results: Consecutive patients implanted with a Micra LPM during the hospitalization in an intensive care unit were retrospectively included. Inclusion criteria were: ≥1 supracaval central venous, or a ventilation tube, or intravenous antibiotic therapy for ongoing sepsis or bacteremia. Patients with a history of previous implantation of a pacemaker were excluded. Out of 1,016 patients implanted with an LPM, 99 met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 75 years and Charlson comorbidity index 7. LPM implantation was successfully performed in 98% of cases, with a peri-operative complication rate of 5%, mainly cardiac injuries. In-hospital mortality rate was 6%. No late (>30 days) device-related complication occurred, especially no infection. Conclusions: LPM appears as an acceptable alternative to conventional temporary transvenous pacing in selected critically ill patients requiring prolonged cardiac pacing, especially regarding the risk of infection.
24 Feb 2021Submitted to Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
25 Feb 2021Submission Checks Completed
25 Feb 2021Assigned to Editor
02 Mar 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
15 Mar 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
18 Mar 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
26 Apr 20211st Revision Received
28 Apr 2021Assigned to Editor
28 Apr 2021Submission Checks Completed
28 Apr 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 May 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
28 May 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
01 Jun 20212nd Revision Received
17 Jun 2021Submission Checks Completed
17 Jun 2021Assigned to Editor
17 Jun 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
27 Jun 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
07 Jul 2021Editorial Decision: Accept