ClinicalExperimentalDual-chamber leadless pacing: Atrioventricular synchrony in preclinical models of normal or blocked atrioventricular conduction
Introduction
Appropriate timing between atrial and ventricular activity, known as atrioventricular (AV) synchrony, is necessary to maintain optimal cardiac function, notably stroke volume and cardiac output.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To preserve this normal sequence in pacemaker-indicated patients, both atrial pacing and tracking are required. Single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LP) technologies designed to operate in VDD(R) mode, lacking atrial pacing and direct atrial sensing capabilities, have reported AV synchrony ranging from 33% to 94% of beats when a variety of postures, heart rates, pacing demands, and physical activities are included.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Similar to traditional transvenous pacemakers, system operations (eg, rate-modulated pacing) in single-chamber LPs are performed by a single device. Expanding to synchronous dual-chamber leadless pacing, however, requires energy-efficient communication between 2 distinct LPs for them to operate in concert as a single system. To ensure continuous AV synchrony and serve as an alternative to traditional DDD(R) pacemakers, true dual-chamber leadless pacing requires bidirectional, wireless communication between LPs at each right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) activation.
One technology by which multiple implants can wirelessly and efficiently operate as a single system has been termed implant-to-implant (i2i™) communication. A previous study demonstrated reliable chronic performance of this i2i communication modality using 2 LPs implanted in vivo in a healthy ovine model.11 However, i2i performance has not been demonstrated under conditions expected clinically, such as AV conduction block or postural changes. This preclinical study assessed the ability of i2i to achieve synchronous, dual-chamber DDD(R) pacing using 2 LPs implanted in the RA and RV of ovine models of normal conduction and AV block. The i2i communication performance and corresponding AV synchrony were evaluated during acute conditions of induced postures and rhythms, as well as during the chronic, natural variations associated with activities of daily living. Because the i2i modality was designed to facilitate AV-synchronous pacing, AV synchrony percentage was expected to equal or exceed i2i communication performance.
Section snippets
i2i Communication
Briefly, the i2i communication methodology uses subthreshold electrical signals (nonstimulatory) containing encoded messages that are conducted on a beat-to-beat basis between implanted LPs through blood and myocardial tissue.11 Whether the i2i message from the transmitting LP is successfully received by the other LP depends on the strength of the i2i signal, as well as the physical separation and relative orientation of the 2 LPs at the moment of transmission. Although bench testing within
Results
RA and RV LPs were implanted and paired successfully in all 7 ovine subjects, with no complications, no clinical signs attributed to cardiac perforation, and uneventful postimplant subject recoveries with no behavioral evidence of distress.
Discussion
AV-synchronous pacing has been shown to benefit dual-chamber pacemaker–indicated patients, reducing pacemaker syndrome and improving hemodynamics and quality of life.1, 2, 3, 4, 5,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Commercially available LPs to date are not capable of atrial pacing and, at times, have unreliable AV-synchronous ventricular pacing (eg, during elevated heart rates, activity, or intrinsic AV conduction).6, 7, 8,19 In the present preclinical study, the Aveir dual-chamber LP system demonstrated
Conclusion
In preclinical models with and without induced AV conduction block, the novel, wireless, bidirectional, implant-to-implant (i2i) communication modality provided robust communication between RA and RV LPs amid various postures, rhythms, and heart rates. This resulted in reliable, AV-synchronous, dual-chamber DDD(R) pacing.
References (21)
- et al.
Hemodynamic benefit of atrioventricular synchrony: prediction from baseline Doppler-echocardiographic variables
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1989) - et al.
Effect of atrioventricular synchrony on stroke volume during ventricular tachycardia in man
Am Heart J
(1992) - et al.
The pacemaker syndrome—a matter of definition
Am J Cardiol
(1997) - et al.
Atrioventricular synchronous pacing using a leadless ventricular pacemaker: results from the MARVEL 2 study
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2020) - et al.
Leadless atrioventricular synchronous pacing in an outpatient setting: early lessons learned on factors affecting atrioventricular synchrony
Heart Rhythm
(2022) - et al.
Accelerometer-based atrioventricular synchronous pacing with a ventricular leadless pacemaker: results from the Micra atrioventricular feasibility studies
Heart Rhythm
(2018) - et al.
Ambulatory atrioventricular synchronous pacing over time using a leadless ventricular pacemaker: primary results from the AccelAV study
Heart Rhythm
(2023) - et al.
Optimizing atrial sensing parameters in leadless pacemakers: atrioventricular synchrony achievement in the real world
Heart Rhythm
(2022) - et al.
Preclinical safety and electrical performance of novel atrial leadless pacemaker with dual-helix fixation
Heart Rhythm
(2022) - et al.
Pacemaker implantation and quality of life in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST)
Heart Rhythm
(2006)
Cited by (0)
Funding Sources: This study was funded by Abbott.
Disclosures: Dr Reddy reports serving as a consultant to Abbott; other disclosures not related to this manuscript are given in the Supplementary Appendix. Dr Neuzil reports consulting fees from Abbott. Daniel F. Booth, Dr Nima Badie, Weiqun Yang, and David Ligon are all employees of Abbott. Dr Knops reports consulting fees, research grants, and/or honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Doshi reports consulting fees and/or fellowship support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Rashtian reports consulting fees and research grants from Abbott. Dr Exner reports consulting fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Banker reports consulting fees and research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Nair reports consulting fees, honoraria, research grants, and support from and serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Adagio Medical, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Hadadi reports consulting fees from Abbott and Biotronik. Dr Ip reports honoraria from and serving as a consultant and on a steering committee for Abbott; consulting fees and honoraria from Medtronic; and serving on a data safety monitoring committee for Boston Scientific.