Dataset Information

Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This study compares clinical outcomes between leadless pacemakers (leadless-VVI) and transvenous ventricular pacemakers (transvenous ventricular permanent-VVI) in subgroups of patients at higher risk of pacemaker complications.

Methods and results

This study is based on the Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) study. Patients from the Micra CED study were considered in a high-risk subgroup if they had a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease Stages 4-5 (CKD45), end-stage renal disease, malignancy, diabetes, tricuspid valve disease (TVD), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 12 months prior to pacemaker implant. A pre-specified set of complications and reinterventions were identified using diagnosis and procedure codes. Competing risks models were used to compare reinterventions and complications between leadless-VVI and transvenous-VVI patients within each subgroup; results were adjusted for multiple comparisons. A post hoc comparison of a composite outcome of reinterventions and device complications was conducted. Out of 27 991 patients, 9858 leadless-VVI and 12 157 transvenous-VVI patients have at least one high-risk comorbidity. Compared to transvenous-VVI patients, leadless-VVI patients in four subgroups [malignancy, HR 0.68 (0.48-0.95); diabetes, HR 0.69 (0.53-0.89); TVD, HR 0.60 (0.44-0.82); COPD, HR 0.73 (0.55-0.98)] had fewer complications, in three subgroups [diabetes, HR 0.58 (0.37-0.89); TVD, HR 0.46 (0.28-0.76); COPD, HR 0.51 (0.29-0.90)) had fewer reinterventions, and in four subgroups (malignancy, HR 0.52 (0.32-0.83); diabetes, HR 0.52 (0.35-0.77); TVD, HR 0.44 (0.28-0.70); COPD, HR 0.55 (0.34-0.89)] had lower rates of the combined outcome.

Conclusion

In a real-world study, leadless pacemaker patients had lower 2-year complications and reinterventions rates compared with transvenous-VVI pacing in several high-risk subgroups.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03039712.

SUBMITTER: Boveda S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10062361 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.

Boveda Serge S Higuera Lucas L Longacre Colleen C Wolff Claudia C Wherry Kael K Stromberg Kurt K El-Chami Mikhael F MF

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20230301 3

<h4>Aims</h4>This study compares clinical outcomes between leadless pacemakers (leadless-VVI) and transvenous ventricular pacemakers (transvenous ventricular permanent-VVI) in subgroups of patients at higher risk of pacemaker complications.<h4>Methods and results</h4>This study is based on the Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) study. Patients from the Micra CED study were considered in a high-risk subgroup if they had a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease Stages 4-5 (CKD45), end-sta ...[more]

PMID: 36757859

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe safety and efficacy of leadless VVI pacemakers have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but the comparative performance of the device in a large, real-world population has not been examined.ObjectiveTo compare patient characteristics and complications among patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers.Design, setting, participantsThe Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers (Micra CED) is a continuously enrolling observational cohort study evaluating complications, utilization, and outcomes of leadless VVI pacemakers in the US Medicare fee-for-service population. Patients implanted between March 9, 2017, and December 1, 2018, were identified and included. All Medicare patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers during the study period were enrolled. Patients with less than 12 months of continuous enrollment in Medicare prior to leadless VVI or transvenous VVI implant and with evidence of a prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device were excluded, leaving 5746 patients with leadless VVI pacemakers and 9662 patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers. Data were analyzed from May 2018 to April 2021.ExposuresMedicare patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers or transvenous VVI pacemakers.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were acute (30-day) complications and 6-month complications.ResultsOf 15 408 patients, 6701 (43.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 81.0 (8.7) years. Compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers, patients with leadless VVI pacemakers were more likely to have end-stage kidney disease (690 [12.0%] vs 226 [2.3%]; P < .001) and a higher mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score (5.1 [3.4] vs 4.6 [3.0]; P < .001). The unadjusted acute complication rate was higher in patients with leadless VVI pacemakers relative to transvenous VVI pacemakers (484 of 5746 [8.4%] vs 707 of 9662 [7.3%]; P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in overall acute complication rates following adjustment for patient characteristics (7.7% vs 7.4%; risk difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.3; P = .49). Pericardial effusion and/or perforation within 30 days was significantly higher among patients with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers in both unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted, 47 of 5746 [0.8%] vs 38 of 9662 [0.4%]; P < .001; adjusted, 0.8% vs 0.4%; risk difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7; P = .004). Patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers had a lower rate of 6-month complications compared with patients implanted with transvenous VVI pacemakers (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03; P = .10; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, despite significant differences in patient characteristics, patients in whom a leadless pacemaker was implanted were observed to have higher rates of pericardial effusion and/or perforation but lower rates of other device-related complications and requirements for device revision at 6 months. Understanding the benefits and risks associated with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with transvenous VVI pacemakers can help clinicians and patients make informed treatment decisions.

Project description:AimsSince their introduction in 1958, traditional cardiac pacemakers have undergone considerable upgrades over the years, but they continue to have a complication rate of ∼3.8%-12.4%. There are no randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of leadless pacemakers (LPM) with single-chamber transvenous pacemakers (TV-VVI). The aim is to assess the differences in the procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes between LPM and TV-VVI implants.Methods and resultsWe queried the national inpatient database from 2016 to 2019 to include adult patients undergoing LPM and TV-VVI. Admissions for leadless and single-lead transvenous pacemakers were identified by their appropriate ICD-10 codes. Complications were identified using ICD-10 codes that mostly represent initial encounter. The difference in outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 propensity score matching between the two cohorts. Thirty-five thousand four hundred thirty expanded samples of admissions were retrieved of which 27 650 (78%) underwent TV-VVI with a mean age 81.3 ± 9.4 years and 7780 (22%) underwent LPM with a mean age of 77.1 ± 12.1 years. The LPM group had a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.63, 95% CI (1.29-2.05), P < 0.001], vascular complications [aOR: 7.54, 95% CI (3.21-17.68), P < 0.001], venous thromboembolism [aOR: 3.67, 95% CI (2.68-5.02), P < 0.001], cardiac complications [aOR: 1.79, 95% CI (1.59-2.03), P < 0.001], device thrombus formation [aOR: 5.03, 95% CI (2.55-9.92), P < 0.001], and need for a blood transfusion [aOR: 1.54, 95% CI (1.14-2.07), P < 0.005]. The TV-VVI group had higher likelihood of in-hospital pulmonary complications [aOR:0.68, 95% CI (0.54-0.87), P < 0.002] and had a need for device revisions [aOR:0.42, 95% CI (0.23-0.76), P < 0.004].ConclusionThere is a higher likelihood of all-cause in-hospital mortality and complications following LPM implantation in comparison to TV-VVI. This could be related to higher co-morbidities in the LPM group. Clinical trials aimed to accurately compare these two groups should be undertaken.

Project description:BackgroundA dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system has been designed for atrioventricular synchronous pacing using wireless, beat-to-beat, implant-to-implant (i2i) communication between distinct atrial and ventricular leadless pacemakers. The atrioventricular synchrony achieved across various ambulatory scenarios has yet to be systematically evaluated.MethodsA prospective, single-arm, unblinded, multicenter, international clinical trial of the leadless pacemaker system was conducted in patients with a conventional dual-chamber pacing indication enrolled from February 2022 to March 2023. Leadless pacemaker systems were implanted, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiographic recordings were collected 3 months after implantation over various postures/activities: sitting, supine, left lateral recumbent, right lateral recumbent, standing, normal walk, and fast walk. An independent Holter core laboratory performed a manual adjudication of the percent of atrioventricular synchronous beats using the standard 300-millisecond PR interval limit. Atrium-to-ventricle and ventricle-to-atrium i2i communication success rates were also assessed. Post hoc summary statistics describing the relationships between atrioventricular synchrony and i2i success, posture/activity, implantation indication, atrioventricular event, and heart rate were calculated.ResultsIn the evaluable population (n=384 of 464 enrolled [83%]; 61% male; age, 70 years; weight, 82 kg; 60% ejection fraction; 95% of beats evaluable), the mean atrioventricular synchrony of 98% of beats observed across all postures using the standard 300-millisecond limit was greater than both atrial-to-ventricular i2i (94%) and ventricular-to-atrial i2i (94%; P<0.001), exceeding both i2i values in 95% of patients. Atrioventricular synchrony was achieved in >95% of evaluable beats across all postures/activities, implantation indications, atrioventricular paced/sensed event combinations, and heart rate ranges (including >100 bpm).ConclusionsThis dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system demonstrated atrioventricular synchrony in 98% of evaluable beats at 3 months after implantation. Atrioventricular synchrony was maintained across postures/activities and remained robust for heart rates >100 bpm.

Dataset Information

Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Two-year outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemaker in high-risk subgroups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets