One Catheter, Two Chambers: Feasibility and Acute Procedural Outcomes of Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker Implantation with a Single Delivery Catheter
- 1Cardiovascular Institute, Northwell Health, Staten Island University Hospital, New Hyde Park, NY 11040, USA
- 2Department of Internal Medicine, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health, NY 10305, USA
Abstract
Background: Dual-chamber leadless pacing with the Aveir DR system restores atrioventricular synchrony without transvenous leads. The labeled implant workflow calls for a separate delivery catheter for each device. The second catheter adds cost and adds steps to the procedure, and whether it is actually needed has not been examined in a large series. Objective: To describe the acute procedural feasibility, the rate of delivery-catheter malfunction, and the effect on direct disposable supply cost of implanting both devices of a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system through one delivery catheter. Methods: We reviewed 102 consecutive patients who received a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker at a single center between February 2024 and February 2025, implanted by five operators at that center. Twenty earlier dual-chamber implants performed with two catheters, before the single-catheter workflow was adopted, precede the study period and are not part of this cohort. The right ventricular device was placed first in every case. The same catheter was then reloaded with the atrial device and used for the second implant, and a new catheter was opened only if the first one failed. We recorded acute implant success, catheter malfunction, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, complications through 30 days after implantation, and direct disposable supply cost. Results: Both devices were implanted through the original catheter in 100 of 102 patients (98.0%, 95% CI 93.1 to 99.8%). Two patients (2.0%, 95% CI 0.2 to 6.9%) needed a catheter exchange because of a mechanical failure that arose during ventricular deployment; in both, the ventricular device had been recaptured and redeployed with repeated torque beforehand. No catheter failed during atrial implantation. Mean time from sheath insertion to removal was 69 min, and mean fluoroscopy time was 16.0 ± 6.6 min. Two device dislodgements occurred (2.0%, 95% CI 0.2 to 6.9%), one intraprocedural and one a right atrial device that embolized the day after implant; neither was related to the delivery catheter. There was no perforation, pericardial effusion, or access-site complication, and no other complication occurred in any patient through 30 days after implant. Omitting the second catheter lowered direct disposable supply cost by 6.1%. Conclusions: With experienced operators, one delivery catheter completed both implants in 98% of cases and lowered disposable supply cost. The study is single arm aand the number of events is small, so these findings support feasibility, with 30-day freedom from complications of 98.0%, and a supply cost difference.
Related
- Feasibility and Safety of Transthoracic Echocardiography–Guided Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Without Fluoroscopy
- Challenging case of leadless pacemaker implantation for a patient with left-sided inferior vena cava.
- Internal jugular vein approach facilitating second leadless pacemaker implantation after battery depletion
- Direct-visualization implantation of an atrial leadless pacemaker at tricuspid valve surgery.
- Pacemaker Dependency in Patients Undergoing Implantation of Dual-chamber Devices After Alcohol Septum Ablation: A Retrospective Analysis
BibTeX
@article{kowalski2026catheter,
title = {{One Catheter, Two Chambers: Feasibility and Acute Procedural Outcomes of Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker Implantation with a Single Delivery Catheter}},
author = {Marcin Kowalski and Kaiyu Jia and Elizabeth Rimsky and Sean Kowalski and Samer Saouma and Rina Shah and Philippe Akhrass and Valay Parikh},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218664},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8664},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - One Catheter, Two Chambers: Feasibility and Acute Procedural Outcomes of Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker Implantation with a Single Delivery Catheter
AU - Marcin Kowalski
AU - Kaiyu Jia
AU - Elizabeth Rimsky
AU - Sean Kowalski
AU - Samer Saouma
AU - Rina Shah
AU - Philippe Akhrass
AU - Valay Parikh
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/06
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218664
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8664
AB - Background: Dual-chamber leadless pacing with the Aveir DR system restores atrioventricular synchrony without transvenous leads. The labeled implant workflow calls for a separate delivery catheter for each device. The second catheter adds cost and adds steps to the procedure, and whether it is actually needed has not been examined in a large series. Objective: To describe the acute procedural feasibility, the rate of delivery-catheter malfunction, and the effect on direct disposable supply cost of implanting both devices of a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system through one delivery catheter. Methods: We reviewed 102 consecutive patients who received a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker at a single center between February 2024 and February 2025, implanted by five operators at that center. Twenty earlier dual-chamber implants performed with two catheters, before the single-catheter workflow was adopted, precede the study period and are not part of this cohort. The right ventricular device was placed first in every case. The same catheter was then reloaded with the atrial device and used for the second implant, and a new catheter was opened only if the first one failed. We recorded acute implant success, catheter malfunction, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, complications through 30 days after implantation, and direct disposable supply cost. Results: Both devices were implanted through the original catheter in 100 of 102 patients (98.0%, 95% CI 93.1 to 99.8%). Two patients (2.0%, 95% CI 0.2 to 6.9%) needed a catheter exchange because of a mechanical failure that arose during ventricular deployment; in both, the ventricular device had been recaptured and redeployed with repeated torque beforehand. No catheter failed during atrial implantation. Mean time from sheath insertion to removal was 69 min, and mean fluoroscopy time was 16.0 ± 6.6 min. Two device dislodgements occurred (2.0%, 95% CI 0.2 to 6.9%), one intraprocedural and one a right atrial device that embolized the day after implant; neither was related to the delivery catheter. There was no perforation, pericardial effusion, or access-site complication, and no other complication occurred in any patient through 30 days after implant. Omitting the second catheter lowered direct disposable supply cost by 6.1%. Conclusions: With experienced operators, one delivery catheter completed both implants in 98% of cases and lowered disposable supply cost. The study is single arm aand the number of events is small, so these findings support feasibility, with 30-day freedom from complications of 98.0%, and a supply cost difference.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -