PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 17, 2023Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology75 citationsOpen Access

Leadless versus transvenous single‐chamber ventricular pacemakers: 3 year follow‐up of the Micra CED study

View Full Paper
GCGeorge H. CrossleyJPJonathan P. PicciniCLColleen Longacre

Structured PICO

Does a leadless VVI pacemaker reduce chronic complications, reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and mortality compared to a transvenous VVI pacemaker in patients requiring single-chamber pacing?

P
Population
16,431 US Medicare beneficiaries with a de novo implant of either a leadless VVI or transvenous VVI pacemaker from March 9, 2017 to December 31, 2018.
I
Intervention
Leadless VVI pacemaker
C
Comparator
Transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker (transvenous VVI)
O
Outcome
Chronic complications, device reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality at 3 yearshard clinical

In a nationwide real-world Medicare cohort, leadless VVI pacemakers were associated with significantly fewer chronic complications, reinterventions, and infections compared to transvenous VVI pacemakers at 3 years.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) Study is a novel comparative analysis of Micra (leadless VVI) and transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemakers (transvenous VVI) using administrative claims data. To compare chronic complications, device reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality after 3 years of follow-up. METHODS: US Medicare claims data linked to manufacturer device registration information were used to identify Medicare beneficiaries with a de novo implant of either a Micra VR leadless VVI or transvenous VVI pacemaker from March 9, 2017 to December 31, 2018. Unadjusted and propensity score overlap-weight adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to compare outcomes at 3 years. RESULTS: Leadless VVI patients (N = 6219) had a 32% lower rate of chronic complications and a 41% lower rate of reintervention compared with transvenous VVI patients (N = 10 212) (chronic complication hazard ratio HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.59-0.78; reintervention HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.44-0.78). Infections rates were significantly lower among patients with a leadless VVI (<0.2% vs. 0.7%, p < .0001). Patients with a leadless VVI also had slightly lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97). There was no difference in the adjusted 3-year all-cause mortality rate (HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03). CONCLUSION: This nationwide comparative evaluation of leadless VVI versus transvenous VVI de novo pacemaker implants demonstrated that the leadless group had significantly fewer complications, reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and infections than the transvenous group at 3 years, confirming that the previously reported shorter-term advantages associated with leadless pacing persist and continue to accrue in the medium-to-long-term.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Crossley et al. (2023) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a00691cb124fe581985df92https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15863
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper