Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2024
Different leadless pacemakers working in harmony (Aveir in the atrium/Micra AV2 in the ventricle) in a patient with dextrocardia and double outlet right ventricle after high-risk infected device extraction.
Клинический случайСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
English Carter, Fan Dali, Ing Frank, Cortez Daniel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Patients with congenital heart disease are at increased risk for requiring cardiac pacing during their lifetime.
METHODS: We present the first described case of using two leadless pacing systems manufactured by separate companies implanted within the same patient to provide atrial and ventricular pacing due to complex congenital anatomy.
RESULTS: A 27-year-old male with dextrocardia with double outlet right ventricle, subaortic ventricular septal defect, and pulmonary stenosis status-post pulmonary valve replacement complicated by ventricular pacing dependence and subsequent atrial pacing dependence after atriotomy-based atypical flutter ablation developed recurrent mediastinitis and pocket infection with erosion despite prolonged antibiotic treatment. Due to atrial and ventricular pacing dependence, a comprehensive congenital care team concluded the need for lead extraction and replacement of pacemaker via leadless peacemaking device. Laser-lead extraction and temporary atrial pacemaker placement was performed. Afterward, a transesophageal echocardiogram guided implantation of both a Micra AV 2 (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker in the interventricular septum within the right ventricle and an Aveir (Abbott) leadless pacemaker in the superior base of the right atrial appendage was performed with successful pacing. Although there is no communication between these devices, atrial-mechanical ventricular pacing was reliable with good implant thresholds, impedances and sensing from both devices.
CONCLUSION: Our case demonstrates the feasibility of using dual leadless pacing modalities to simultaneously pace someone at complex, prohibitive risk for temporary permanent or permanent pacemaker devices.
METHODS: We present the first described case of using two leadless pacing systems manufactured by separate companies implanted within the same patient to provide atrial and ventricular pacing due to complex congenital anatomy.
RESULTS: A 27-year-old male with dextrocardia with double outlet right ventricle, subaortic ventricular septal defect, and pulmonary stenosis status-post pulmonary valve replacement complicated by ventricular pacing dependence and subsequent atrial pacing dependence after atriotomy-based atypical flutter ablation developed recurrent mediastinitis and pocket infection with erosion despite prolonged antibiotic treatment. Due to atrial and ventricular pacing dependence, a comprehensive congenital care team concluded the need for lead extraction and replacement of pacemaker via leadless peacemaking device. Laser-lead extraction and temporary atrial pacemaker placement was performed. Afterward, a transesophageal echocardiogram guided implantation of both a Micra AV 2 (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker in the interventricular septum within the right ventricle and an Aveir (Abbott) leadless pacemaker in the superior base of the right atrial appendage was performed with successful pacing. Although there is no communication between these devices, atrial-mechanical ventricular pacing was reliable with good implant thresholds, impedances and sensing from both devices.
CONCLUSION: Our case demonstrates the feasibility of using dual leadless pacing modalities to simultaneously pace someone at complex, prohibitive risk for temporary permanent or permanent pacemaker devices.