Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 7, 2025
Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Comparison in Clinical Outcomes Between Leadless and Conventional Transvenous Pacemaker Following Transcatheter
Kazuaki Okuyama1, Masaki Izumo, Kenichi Sasaki
1Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan. kazu-823@hotmail.co.jp.
Objectives:
Atrioventricular block is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Although conventional transvenous dual-chamber (DDD) pacemaker (PM) is ideal for atrioventricular block, leadless PM, which is less invasive, may be suitable for frail TAVI patients. Little is known about clinical outcomes of this newer device following TAVI.
Methods:
A total of 330 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI were reviewed. Of these, PM cases without atrial fibrillation were studied. Indication for leadless PM was based on heart team discussion.
Results:
PM implantations were performed in 30 patients (9.1%), and 24 patients (7.3%) had no atrial fibrillation. These 24 patients had 14 DDD-PMs and 10 leadless PMs, and formed the two study groups. Baseline characteristics were similar except for ejection fraction: median ages were 83.0 years (IQR, 81.0-87.0 years) vs 86.5 years (IQR, 83.5-90.3) (P=.18); 11 (78.6%) vs 8 (80%) were women (P=.67); Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 5.1% (IQR, 3.8%-5.9%) vs 5.3% (IQR, 3.4%-8.5%) (P=.82); and ejection fractions were 68.0% (IQR, 66.0%-70.5%) vs 59.0% (IQR, 52.8%-69.3%) (P=.049), for the DDD-PM and leadless PM groups, respectively. There was 1 case of atrial lead dislodgment in the DDD-PM group; otherwise, no complications related to the implantation procedure were found. The leadless PM group showed numerically shorter hospital stay: 12.5 days (range, 9.0-17.8 day) in the DDD-PM group vs 10.5 days (range, 7.8-15.3 days) in the leadless PM group (P=.44). Six-month follow-up revealed no significant differences in incidence of heart failure rehospitalizations or deaths: 2 (14.3%) in the DDD-PM group vs 2 (25%) in the leadless PM group (P=.47); and 2 (14.3%) in the DDD-PM group vs 0 (0%) in the leadless PM group (P=.39), respectively.
Conclusions:
Patients with leadless PM following TAVI may have shorter hospital stays, and clinical outcomes can be comparable with DDD-PMs. Leadless PMs may therefore be a reasonable option for frail TAVI patients.
