Impact of omitting the intravenous heparin bolus on outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology Vol. 35; no. 6; pp. 1212 - 1216
• Main Authors: Huang, Jingwen, Bhatia, Neal K., Lloyd, Michael S., Westerman, Stacy, Shah, Anand, Delurgio, David, Patel, Anshul M., Tompkins, Christine, El‐Chami, Mikhael F., Merchant, Faisal M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants; Anticoagulants - administration & dosage; Anticoagulants - adverse effects; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; clinical:implantable devices–pacemaker‐bradyarrhythmias; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart; Hematoma; Heparin; Heparin - administration & dosage; Heparin - adverse effects; Humans; Intravenous administration; Male; Middle Aged; Pacemaker, Artificial; Pacemakers; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects; Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation; Pseudoaneurysm; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Thrombosis; Time Factors; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome; clinical:implantable devices–pacemaker‐bradyarrhythmias
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.16284

Background Early guidance recommended a bolus of intravenous heparin at the beginning of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation procedures. However, due to concern about bleeding complications, more recent practice has tended toward omitting the bolus and only running a continuous heparin infusion through the introducer sheath. The impact of omitting the heparin bolus on procedural outcomes is not clear. Methods We reviewed all Medtronic Micra LP implants at our institution from 9/2014 to 9/2022. The decision to bolus with heparin was at operator discretion. Results Among 621 LP implants, 326 received an intravenous heparin bolus, 243 did not, and 52 patients were excluded because heparin bolus status could not be confirmed. There was a trend toward more frequent omission of the heparin bolus with more recent implants. Median follow‐up after LP implant was 14.3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.4–27.9) months. There was no difference between heparin bolus and no bolus groups in the number of device deployments/recaptures (1.42 ± 0.81 vs. 1.31 ± 0.66, p = .15). Implant‐related adverse events were also similar between heparin bolus and no bolus groups: access‐site hematoma requiring intervention (7 vs. 5, p = .99), pseudoaneurysm (1 vs. 1, p = .99), cardiac perforation (1 vs. 1, p = .99), intraprocedural device thrombus formation (2 vs. 4, p = .41), 30‐day rehospitalization (21 vs. 15, p = .98), and 30‐day all‐cause mortality (16 vs. 14, p = .70). There was one additional nonfatal cardiac perforation in a patient who was excluded due to unknown heparin bolus status. Regarding device electrical parameters between heparin bolus and no bolus groups, there were no significant differences at the time of implant: pacing capture threshold 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = .10; pacing impedance 739.9 ± 226.4 vs. 719.1 ± 215.4, p = .52; R wave sensing 11.7 ± 5.7 vs. 12.0 ± 5.4, p = .34). Long‐term device performance was also similar between groups. Conclusion Omission of the systemic heparin bolus at the time of LP implantation appears safe in appropriately selected patients. Heparin bolus may still be considered in long cases requiring multiple device deployments or in patients at high risk for thrombotic complications.