Transfemoral leadless pacemaker implantation after tricuspid valve surgery and intervention
Authors: Imnadze G , Eitz T , Sciacca V , Didenko M , Guckel D , Braun M , El Hamriti M , Khalaph M , Sohns C , Sommer P , Fink T 
Published: May 2024

Abstract

Background and Purpose
Pacemaker (PM) implantation after surgical or transcatheter tricuspid valve (TV) repair or replacement may be challenging. Transcatheter leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation has become a routine procedure and is frequently adopted in patients without the need for an atrial lead, in cases with cardiac implantable device infection or in patients with marked comorbidities. The use of LPM in patients with previous TV repair or replacement has only been described in singular cases in literature. We present our single center experience of LPM implantation after TV repair.

Methods
Patients with a history of TV repair or replacement who underwent LPM in our institution between 01/2020 and 11/2023 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent routine clinical follow-up investigations including LPM interrogation and transthoracic echocardiography to assess for TV status. For LPM implantation right anterior oblique (RAO) and left anterior oblique (LAO) caudal fluoroscopy projections were utilized to enable LPM device passage across the TV.

Results
The study population consisted of 10 patients (9 females, mean age 74.0±10.0 years). Two patients had a history of surgical TV annuloplasty repair and two patients a history of surgical valve replacement, four patients of transcatheter TV repair (one through the mitral clip), one patient of transcatheter valve-in-ring bio prosthesis implantation prosthesis after previous surgical ring deployment and one patient transcatheter TV replacement (Figure1).
All patients suffered from permanent atrial fibrillation previous to implantation procedures. Three patients were on chronic hemodialysis therapy before LPM implantation. LPM systems were successfully implanted in all cases with a mean procedure time of 43.5±26.5 minutes and a mean fluoroscopy time of 5.9±5.5 minutes and a radiation dose of 1148,7±1424,9 cGy·cm2. For fluoroscopically guided TV crossing a mean LAO angle of 43.6±14.1° (range 22 to 53°) and caudal angle of 8.5±6.9° (range 0 to 20°) was utilized (Figure 2). The LPM device was positioned in the first positioning attempt in a right ventricular high septal localization in 8 cases. Mean pacing threshold was 0.36±0.07 V at 0.25 ms, with a mean sensing amplitude of 10.5±2.9 mV and a mean of 853±324 Ohms pacing impedance. No periprocedural complications occurred. Mean duration of follow-up was 8.1±9.2 months. There were no newly developed TV regurgitations noted. Pacing thresholds (0.37±0.1 V/0.25 ms), sensing amplitude (11.8±4.5 mV) as well as pacing impedances (865±365 Ohms) remained stable until the last follow-up investigation.

Conclusion
LPM implantation was feasible in patients with a history of TV repair or replacement. LPM implantation was safe and effective in various modalities of TV repair. LPM may be an alternative to conventional pacemaker implantations as well as surgical lead placement in selected patients.Figure 1.Figure 2.