Quality of life of patients undergoing conventional vs leadless pacemaker implantation: A multicenter observational study

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology Vol. 31; no. 1; pp. 330 - 336
• Main Authors: Cabanas‐Grandío, Pilar, García Campo, Enrique, Bisbal, Felipe, García‐Seara, Javier, Pachón, Marta, Juan‐Salvadores, Pablo, Paredes, Emilio, Molinero, Asier, Martínez‐Sande, José Luis, Arias, Miguel Ángel, Íñiguez Romo, Andrés
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-01-2020
• Subjects: Diabetes mellitus; Discomfort; follow‐up; Heart; Implantation; leadless; Mental health; Observational studies; pacemaker; Pacemakers; Population studies; Quality of life; Questionnaires; transvenous; Ventricle; follow-up; pacemaker; leadless; quality of life; transvenous
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14322

Background
Leadless pacemakers (L‐PM) are an emerging effective and safe technology that offer an alternative to conventional pacemakers (C‐PM) for right ventricular stimulation. However, there is little information about their potential benefits for quality of life (QoL) in patients with L‐PM. We compared QoL between patients with L‐PM and C‐PM.
Methods
The study population comprised patients undergoing single chamber pacemaker implantation from December 2016 to March 2018. The SF‐36 questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL at baseline and at 6 months of followup. We also used a questionnaire consisted of 10 specific questions related to the implant procedure.
Results
A total of 106 patients (64 C‐PM; 42 L‐PM) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (C‐PM vs L‐PM), except for age (81.5 vs 77.3 years; P = .012) and diabetes (38% vs 17%; P = .021). Baseline SF‐36 scores did not differ between the groups. At 6 months followup, patients in the L‐PM group scored significantly higher on physical function (63 vs 42; P < .001), physical role (64 vs 36; P = .004), and mental health (75 vs 65; P = .017), even after adjusting for covariates. Pacemaker‐related discomfort and physical restrictions were significantly lower for the L‐PM group.
Conclusion
L‐PM is associated with better QoL than C‐PM in both physical and mental health. Patients undergoing L‐PM implantation reported less procedure‐related discomfort, physical restriction, and preoccupation.