Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients

Mikhael F. El-chami, Nicolas Clementy, Christophe Garweg, Razali Omar, Gabor Z. Duray, Charles C. Gornick, Francisco Leyva-Leon, Venkata Sagi, Jonathan P. Piccini, Kyoko Soejima, Kurt Stromberg, Paul R. Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.

Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.

Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized.

Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia.

Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118)
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)162-170
Number of pages9
JournalJACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Issue number2
Early online date30 Jan 2019
Publication statusPublished - 19 Feb 2019


  • bradycardia
  • hemodialysis
  • leadless pacemaker
  • permanent pacemaker


Dive into the research topics of 'Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this