Literature DB >> 32763431

Morbidity and mortality in patients precluded for transvenous pacemaker implantation: Experience with a leadless pacemaker.

Aatish Garg1, Jayanthi N Koneru1, Dedra H Fagan2, Kurt Stromberg2, Santosh K Padala1, Mikhael F El-Chami3, Paul R Roberts4, Jonathan P Piccini5, Alan Cheng2, Kenneth A Ellenbogen6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Micra transcatheter pacemaker is a safe and effective alternative to transvenous permanent pacemakers (TV-PPMs). However, the safety profile and mortality outcomes of Micra implantation in patients deemed poor candidates for TV-PPM are incompletely understood.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and all-cause mortality in patients undergoing Micra implantation stratified by whether they were precluded for therapy with a TV-PPM.
METHODS: Patients from the Micra clinical trials were divided into groups on the basis of whether the implanter considered the patient to be precluded from receiving a TV-PPM. Micra groups were compared with one another as well as with a historical cohort of patients who received a single-chamber TV-PPM.
RESULTS: A total of 2817 patients underwent a Micra implantation attempt, of whom 546 (19%) patients deemed ineligible for TV-PPM implantation for reasons such as venous access issues or prior device infections. Both acute mortality (2.75% vs 1.32%; P=.022) and total mortality at 36 months (38.1% vs 20.6%; P<.001) were significantly higher in the precluded group than in the nonprecluded group. Mortality was similar among nonprecluded patients and patients implanted with a TV-PPM. The major complication rate through 36 months was similar between the 2 Micra groups (3.81% vs 4.30%; P=.40).
CONCLUSION: All-cause mortality is higher in Micra patients deemed ineligible for TV-PPM implantation than in nonprecluded Micra patients and those who received a TV-PPM, in part related to a higher incidence of chronic comorbidities in these patients. The overall major complication rate was low and did not differ by preclusion status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Micra Post-Approval Registry ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118; Micra Continued Access Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873; Medtronic Product Surveillance Registry ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01524276.
Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Leadless pacemaker; Micra VR; Pacemaker complications; Transvenous pacemaker

Year:  2020        PMID: 32763431     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.07.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  3 in total

1.  Implantation of a Leadless Pacemaker after Incomplete Transvenous Lead Extraction in a 90-Year-Old Pacemaker-Dependent Patient.

Authors:  Gerald Drożdż; Bruno Hrymniak; Bartosz Biel; Przemysław Skoczyński; Wiktoria Drożdż; Dorota Zyśko; Waldemar Banasiak; Dariusz Jagielski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 4.614

2.  Development and validation of a risk score for predicting pericardial effusion in patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation: experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.

Authors:  Jonathan P Piccini; Ryan Cunnane; Jan Steffel; Mikhael F El-Chami; Dwight Reynolds; Paul R Roberts; Kyoko Soejima; Clemens Steinwender; Christophe Garweg; Larry Chinitz; Christopher R Ellis; Kurt Stromberg; Dedra H Fagan; Lluis Mont
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 5.486

3.  Leadless or Conventional Transvenous Ventricular Permanent Pacemakers: A Nationwide Matched Control Study.

Authors:  Alexandre Bodin; Nicolas Clementy; Arnaud Bisson; Bertrand Pierre; Julien Herbert; Dominique Babuty; Laurent Fauchier
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 6.106

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.