Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Lead or be led: an update on leadless cardiac devices for general physicians

Benedict M Wiles and Paul R Roberts
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.17-1-33
Clin Med February 2017
Benedict M Wiles
ACardiac Rhythm Management, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
Roles: research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul R Roberts
BCardiac Rhythm Management, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
Roles: consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

ABSTRACT

Implantable cardiac devices have an increasingly important role. Pacemakers remain the only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia; cardiac resynchronisation therapy is a proven treatment for heart failure; and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are superior to medical therapy in prevention of sudden cardiac death. Our ageing population has led to a rising number of device implants. Physicians in all specialties increasingly encounter patients with cardiac devices and require an understanding of their capabilities and functions. The rising prevalence of implantable devices has been matched by a parallel expanse in device technology. Leadless devices have become a reality and represent the future of device therapy. The absence of a transvenous lead offers a significant clinical advantage because of many well established issues related to lead complications. The leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD are significant new products that are currently not well recognised or understood by general physicians.

KEYWORDS
  • Defibrillator
  • ICD
  • leadless
  • pacemaker
  • subcutaneous

Introduction

Implantable cardiac devices have an important and expanding role in the management of cardiovascular disease. The cardiac pacemaker is the only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia and remains the most prevalent cardiac device.1,2 First implanted in 1958, pacemaker technology has evolved significantly.3 From single chamber systems delivering fixed rate ventricular pacing, to physiological and multi-chamber pacing with integrated defibrillator technology, complex cardiac devices are now commonplace.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a well established treatment for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and asynchronous left ventricular contraction, improving quality of life and reducing heart failure-related hospitalisations and mortality.4 Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an important treatment for ventricular arrhythmias and have been consistently superior to medical therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in large studies.5,6

Technological advances and improved recognition of patients at risk of sudden cardiac death have broadened the clinical indications for device therapy.1 Implant rates are subsequently steadily increasing across Europe.2 Implant incidence is also strongly correlated with advancing age. In developed economies, device prevalence has doubled over the last 15 years.7 Until our ageing population reaches an equilibrium, this demand will continue to grow.7

All physicians increasingly encounter patients with implanted cardiac devices, such that an understanding of their functions and capabilities is warranted. Challengingly, the cardiac device landscape develops quickly. Since 2012, two new cardiac devices have come to market: the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and the leadless pacemaker. Neither device has a transvenous component, representing a new approach in device therapy. Understandably, these devices are not well recognised or understood by many clinicians, including some cardiologists.

Transvenous leads

Cardiac devices traditionally comprise two components: a pulse generator (can), most commonly implanted in a prepectoral subcutaneous pocket, and a number of transvenous leads. Each lead is attached proximally to the can and fixated distally to the endocardial aspect of the heart (Fig 1). Implantation of the lead requires venous puncture, with the subclavian, axillary and cephalic veins frequently used. Device implantation is associated with infection, haematoma, inadvertent arterial puncture, pneumothorax, haemothorax and cardiac tamponade. Late complications associated with transvenous systems include lead fracture, lead displacement, venous obstruction and infective endocarditis.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). A – an implanted transvenous defibrillator system comprising a pulse generator and two transvenous leads (right atrial and right ventricular). B – a Boston Scientific subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted in the left axillary position. The subcutaneous lead can be seen emerging from the inferior aspect of the can, travelling towards the midline (parallel to the rib cage) before turning 90° to run superiorly adjacent to the left sternal edge. Reproduced with permission from Boston Scientific.

Device related complication rates remain high. Registry data from Denmark show that 10% of patients undergoing device implantation experience a complication, with a 6% chance of major complication.8 Defibrillator implants are even higher risk, with in-hospital complication rates of 11–16%.8 Lead longevity is also a significant issue. The annual rate of ICD lead defects requiring intervention increases with time and reaches 20% in 10-year-old leads.9 Estimated defibrillator lead survival at 5 and 8 years are just 85% and 60%, respectively.9 One third of patients who experience lead failure present with inappropriate shock therapy.9

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The S-ICD does not enter the heart or vascular system. It comprises a subcutaneous can, implanted in a left axillary position, and a tunnelled subcutaneous lead (Fig 1). The lead is not exposed to the repetitive contractions of the cardiac cycle or the hostile environment of the vasculature.9 S-ICD registry data show that in 882 patients with an S-ICD, followed up for an average of 2 years, there were no episodes of endocarditis, cardiac injury or electrode failures. Acute major complication rates for implants were also reduced in comparison to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) implants (haematoma, lead malposition or displacement and pneumothorax).10 The S-ICD is particularly useful in patients with no appropriate venous access and in younger patients, although 43% of the registry patients were actually primary prevention patients at risk of sudden cardiac death due to reduced ejection fraction.10

The S-ICD records electrocardiogram (ECG) signal between any two of its three sensing points: distal lead electrode, proximal lead electrode and can. The signal resembles the surface ECG, allowing improved discrimination of arrhythmias on the basis of morphology. Appropriate ventricular arrhythmia detection is excellent, while supraventricular arrhythmia discrimination specificity is superior to some TV-ICD systems.11

The S-ICD signal is more susceptible to noise, myopotenials and T-wave oversensing than the endocardial signals of the TV-ICD. Around 8% of S-ICD patients receive inappropriate therapy and this is mainly due to oversensing.11 This rate is comparable to present TV-ICD systems and can be substantially and safely reduced with appropriate device programming.12

The S-ICD requires greater defibrillation energy (80 Joules) than a TV-ICD (35 Joules). These higher energy requirements result in longer charge times and necessitate a larger and heavier can. The S-ICD in its current form also has extremely limited pacing capabilities. Subcutaneous pacing is similar to transcutaneous pacing in that it is significantly uncomfortable for the patient and is associated with mechanical capture of skeletal muscle. The S-ICD, therefore, only delivers pacing to treat transient post-shock bradycardia. Consequently, the S-ICD is not suitable for patients with a permanent pacing indication, including those who require resynchronisation pacing for heart failure.

The S-ICD also cannot deliver anti-tachycardia pacing. This is a painless treatment for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia whereby arrhythmia termination is achieved through the delivery of rapid bursts of right ventricular pacing at a faster rate than the tachycardia. Therefore, an S-ICD is not advised in patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia successfully treated by anti-tachycardia pacing.

Potential S-ICD patients require non-invasive ECG screening prior to implant. This is to ensure that the S-ICD will be able to accurately recognise the patient’s ECG and relies upon the patient having suitable QRS and T wave morphology. While this reduces the risk of over sensing and inappropriate therapies, it also reduces the number of patients eligible for the device.

Leadless pacing

Leadless pacing is possible because of the production of self-contained pacemakers, small enough to be implanted into the right ventricle (Fig 2). These encapsulated devices combine surface electrodes capable of endocardial sensing and pacing with a small battery and can be implanted non-surgically via the femoral vein. There is no transvenous lead and no subcutaneous pocket, avoiding the many potential adverse events associated with these components.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Medtronic Micra leadless pacemaker. A – compared in size to a one Euro coin; B – implanted. Reproduced with permission from Medtronic.

Large bore femoral sheaths are required to facilitate delivery of the device and its steerable dedicated delivery system to the ventricle. Deployed on the septal aspect of the right ventricular apex, with active fixation to the endocardial ventricular surface, the device is designed to remain implanted for the patient’s lifetime. Battery longevity is predicted to exceed traditional devices. Once battery life has been exhausted, the leadless pacemaker is small enough that the right ventricle can accommodate further implantations without the need for extraction. Currently, pacing and sensing are limited to the right ventricle, as the device has no atrial or left ventricular component. Preservation of atrioventricular synchrony and cardiac resynchronisation are, therefore, not achievable although rate responsive ventricular pacing is.

Early trials have demonstrated leadless pacing to be both feasible and safe.13,14 Implant-related complications include dislodgement requiring percutaneous retrieval, cardiac perforation, device repositioning due to pacing-threshold increase and vascular groin complications.13 However, the overall safety profile is similar to that of a transvenous system.14

Future developments

It is anticipated that over the next decade the use of leadless cardiac devices will increase tremendously, thereby reducing the role of traditional transvenous systems. Device programming will improve and recognition of those patients who will benefit most from leadless systems will be refined.

Progress has also been made toward the production of a wireless communication system that would allow an S-ICD to communicate with an implanted leadless pacemaker. This would generate an entirely leadless system capable of permanent pacing, defibrillation and anti-tachycardia pacing. Early animal trials have demonstrated that this is feasible.15 Human trials are anticipated within the next few years.

Leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy may also be achieved in the future. Endovascular left ventricular pacing confers a number of advantages over traditional epicardial pacing via the cardiac venous tributaries and has been demonstrated to be both safe and effective.16,17 Leadless endocardial left ventricular pacing is also a reality, as is wireless communication between implanted systems to achieve resynchronisation.18

Conclusions

Leadless devices are in their infancy and long-term data on their safety and efficacy are awaited. However, they do offer significant advantages over transvenous systems and are likely to represent the future of cardiac device therapy. Implant numbers are expected to grow and all physicians will increasingly encounter this new wave of device technology.

Conflicts of interest

BMW receives a fellowship grant from Boston Scientific. PRR receives consultancy and advisory board payments from both Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2017. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Epstein AE
    , DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices) developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2008;117:e350–408.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Pekka Raatikainen MJ
    , Arnar DO, Zeppenfeld K, et al. Current trends in the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices and interventional electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology member countries: 2015 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2015;17:iv1–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Larsson B
    , Elmqvist H, Ryden L, et al. Lessons from the first patient with an implanted pacemaker: 1958–2001. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003;26:114–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. McAlister FA
    , Ezekowitz J, Hooton N, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic sysfunction: a systematic review. JAMA 2007;297:2502–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Connolly SJ
    , Gent M, Roberts RS, et al. Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS): a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. Circulation 2000;101:1297–302.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Moss AJ
    , Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:877–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bradshaw PJ
    , Stobie P, Knuiman MW, et al. Trends in the incidence and prevalence of cardiac pacemaker insertions in an ageing population. Open Heart 2014:1;e000177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kirkfeldt RE
    , Johansen JB, Nohr EA, et al. Complications after cardiac implantable device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1186–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Kleemann T
    , Becker R, Doenges K, et al. Annual rate of transvenous defibrillation lead defects in implantable cardioverter defibrillators over a period of >10 years. Circulation 2007;115:2474–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Burke MC
    , Gold MR, Knight BP, et al. Safety and efficacy of the totally subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: 2-year results from a pooled analysis of the IDE study and EFFORTLESS Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:1605–15.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Gold MR
    , Theuns DA, Knight BP, et al. Head-to-head comparison of arrhythmia discrimination performance of subcutaneous and transvenous ICD arrhythmia detection algorithms: the START study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2012;23:359–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Olde Nordkamp LR
    , Brouwer TF, Barr C, et al. Inappropriate shocks in the subcutaneous ICD: incidence, predictors and management. Int J Cardiol 2015;195:126–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Reynolds D
    , Duray GZ, Omar R, et al. A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. N Engl J Med 2016;374:533–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Reddy VY
    , Exner DV, Cantillon DJ, et al. Percutaneous implantation of an entirely intracardiac leadless pacemaker. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1125–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Tjong FV
    , Brouwer TF, Smeding L, et al. Combined leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy: feasibility, safety, and performance. Europace 2016;18:1740–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Morgan JM
    , Biffi M, Geller L, et al. Alternate site cardiac resynchronization (ALSYNC): a prospective and multicentre study of left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2118–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Whinnett Z
    , Bordachar P. The risks and benefits of transseptal endocardial pacing. Curr Opin Cardiol 2012;27:19–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Auricchio A
    , Delnoy PP, Butter C, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (Wise-CRT) study. Europace 2014;16:681–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Lead or be led: an update on leadless cardiac devices for general physicians
Benedict M Wiles, Paul R Roberts
Clinical Medicine Feb 2017, 17 (1) 33-36; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-1-33

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Lead or be led: an update on leadless cardiac devices for general physicians
Benedict M Wiles, Paul R Roberts
Clinical Medicine Feb 2017, 17 (1) 33-36; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-1-33
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Transvenous leads
    • Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator
    • Leadless pacing
    • Future developments
    • Conclusions
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Lead or be led: an update on leadless cardiac devices for general physicians
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Radiation-induced coronary artery disease: a difficult clinical conundrum
  • The diagnostic pathway in lung cancer patients with best supportive care decisions: are there lessons to be learnt?
  • The individualisation of glycaemic targets in response to patient characteristics in type 2 diabetes: a scoping review
Show more Review

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians