journal article
Open Access
Mar 29, 2026
Impact of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Position on Subclinical Right Ventricular Perforation
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Leadless pacemakers are typically implanted in the mid‐septum of the right ventricle (RV) to mitigate the risk of perforation. However, reports on the precise location of these implants are limited. This study aimed to elucidate tine‐based leadless pacemaker position and presence of subclinical RV perforation through computed tomography (CT) imaging, along with the associated prognosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent heart, chest or abdomen CT after leadless pacemaker implantation were consecutively included. Two cardiologists and one radiologist reviewed the CT images to assess the position of tines and to detect RV perforation. The implantation position was categorized as the septum, RV free wall, junction of septum and RV free wall, moderator band, and RV apex. Subclinical perforation was defined as the tines of a leadless pacemaker beyond the outer myocardial contour without symptoms, pericardial effusion, hemodynamic instability, or pacemaker malfunction.
Results
A total of 88 patients (age, 72.9 ± 12.1 years; 42 males) were included. The interval between procedure and CT scanning was 8.6 ± 9.2 months. In 68 patients (77.3%), the leadless pacemaker was implanted at the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation occurred in 15 patients (17.0%). Among patients with RV perforation, the most common implantation site was the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. None of the patients with RV perforation experienced any adverse events for 12.4 ± 12.3 months.
Conclusions
The most common leadless pacemaker implantation site is the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation is not uncommon and not associated with overt adverse outcomes.
Introduction
Leadless pacemakers are typically implanted in the mid‐septum of the right ventricle (RV) to mitigate the risk of perforation. However, reports on the precise location of these implants are limited. This study aimed to elucidate tine‐based leadless pacemaker position and presence of subclinical RV perforation through computed tomography (CT) imaging, along with the associated prognosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent heart, chest or abdomen CT after leadless pacemaker implantation were consecutively included. Two cardiologists and one radiologist reviewed the CT images to assess the position of tines and to detect RV perforation. The implantation position was categorized as the septum, RV free wall, junction of septum and RV free wall, moderator band, and RV apex. Subclinical perforation was defined as the tines of a leadless pacemaker beyond the outer myocardial contour without symptoms, pericardial effusion, hemodynamic instability, or pacemaker malfunction.
Results
A total of 88 patients (age, 72.9 ± 12.1 years; 42 males) were included. The interval between procedure and CT scanning was 8.6 ± 9.2 months. In 68 patients (77.3%), the leadless pacemaker was implanted at the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation occurred in 15 patients (17.0%). Among patients with RV perforation, the most common implantation site was the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. None of the patients with RV perforation experienced any adverse events for 12.4 ± 12.3 months.
Conclusions
The most common leadless pacemaker implantation site is the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation is not uncommon and not associated with overt adverse outcomes.
Topics
No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →
References
17
[1]
Meredith A. "The Rise of Leadless Pacemaker Utilization in United States" American Journal of Cardiology (2021) 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.06.005
[2]
Khan M. Z. "Contemporary Trends of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in the United States" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2024) 10.1111/jce.16295
[3]
Piccini J. P. "Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single‐Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker" JAMA Cardiology (2021) 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2621
[4]
Hauser R. G. "Major Adverse Clinical Events Associated With Implantation of a Leadless Intracardiac Pacemaker" Heart Rhythm (2021) 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.03.015
[5]
El‐Chami M. F. "Leadless vs. Transvenous Single‐Chamber Ventricular Pacing in the Micra CED Study: 2‐Year Follow‐Up" European Heart Journal (2022) 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab767
[6]
Togashi I. "Subclinical Cardiac Perforation Caused by a Micra™ Leadless Pacemaker" Journal of Arrhythmia (2018) 10.1002/joa3.12052
[7]
Tan N. Y. "The Subtle Tine: Asymptomatic Micra Perforation Incidentally Discovered During Cardiac Surgery" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2023) 10.1111/jce.15653
[8]
Hai J.‐J. "Safety and Feasibility of a Midseptal Implantation Technique of a Leadless Pacemaker" Heart Rhythm (2019) 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.12.007
[9]
Hauser R. G. "Leadless Pacemaker Perforations: Clinical Consequences and Related Device and User Problems" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2022) 10.1111/jce.15343
[10]
Shantha G. "Anatomical Location of Leadless Pacemaker and the Risk of Pacing‐Induced Cardiomyopathy" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2023) 10.1111/jce.15925
[11]
Arai H. "Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Sites Confirmed by Computed Tomography and Their Parameters and Complication Rates" Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (2022) 10.1111/pace.14437
[12]
El‐Chami M. F. "How to Implant a Leadless Pacemaker With a Tine‐Based Fixation" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2016) 10.1111/jce.13092
[13]
Lim Y.‐M. "Subclinical Cardiac Perforation by Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Leads Detected by Cardiac Computed Tomography" BMC Cardiovascular Disorders (2021)
[14]
Piccini J. P. "Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Predicting Pericardial Effusion in Patients Undergoing Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker" EP Europace (2022) 10.1093/europace/euab315
[15]
Mahapatra S. "Incidence and Predictors of Cardiac Perforation After Permanent Pacemaker Placement" Heart Rhythm (2005) 10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.06.011
[16]
Cano O. "Incidence and Predictors of Clinically Relevant Cardiac Perforation Associated With Systematic Implantation of Active‐Fixation Pacing and Defibrillation Leads: A Single‐Centre Experience With Over 3800 Implanted Leads" EP Europace (2017)
[17]
Tolosana J. M. "Very High Pacing Thresholds During Long‐Term Follow‐Up Predicted by a Combination of Implant Pacing Threshold and Impedance in Leadless Transcatheter Pacemakers" Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (2020) 10.1111/jce.14360
Metrics
0
Citations
17
References
Details
- Published
- Mar 29, 2026
- License
- View
Authors
Cite This Article
Young Shin Lee, Jae‐Sun Uhm, Jae‐Hyeong Park, et al. (2026). Impact of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Position on Subclinical Right Ventricular Perforation. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70218
Related
You May Also Like
A Quantitative Systematic Review of Normal Values for Short-Term Heart Rate Variability in Healthy Adults
DAVID NUNAN, GAVIN R. H. SANDERCOCK · 2010
689 citations
The Revised NASPE/BPEG Generic Code for Antibradycardia, Adaptive‐Rate, and Multisite Pacing
ALAN D. BERNSTEIN, JEAN‐CLAUDE DAUBERT · 2002
277 citations
Clinical Study of the Laser Sheath for Lead Extraction: The Total Experience in the United States
CHARLES L. BYRD, Bruce L. Wilkoff · 2002
270 citations
The Biophysics of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in the Heart: The Importance of Temperature Monitoring
David E. Haines · 1993
238 citations