Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein
- Retrospective cohort study
- two centres
- consecutive patients
Authors' conclusion
The jugular approach may represent a safe and efficient alternative to femoral implantation of the Micra leadless pacemaker.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing Micra leadless pacemaker implantation
- Participants
- 100 vs 100
- Exposure
- Jugular vs femoral leadless pacemaker implantation
- Jugularn = 100
- Femoraln = 100reference
- Outcome
- Peri-procedural safety and efficacy
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Procedure and fluoroscopy times
| Group | Procedure time, mean ± SD | Fluoroscopy time, mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Femoral | 48.9 ± 21.0 min | 7.7 ± 7.8 min |
- Jugular vs Femoral: P < 0.01 — procedure and fluoroscopy times both shorter with jugular
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Pacing threshold (at 0.24 ms pulse width) and sensed amplitude
- Electrical parameters stable at follow-up in all patients; similar between approaches
Safety
| Outcome | Jugular | Femoral |
|---|---|---|
| Complications | ||
| Pericardial effusion | 1 | 1 |
| Dislocation | 1 | Not reported in the abstract |
| Femoral artery injuries | Not reported in the abstract | 2 |
| Major groin haematomas | Not reported in the abstract | 13 |
Original publication
Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein. Europace. Published 25 July 2024. doi:10.1093/europace/euae199
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it