Jonathan P Piccini1, Ryan Cunnane2, Jan Steffel3, Mikhael F El-Chami4, Dwight Reynolds5, Paul R Roberts6, Kyoko Soejima7, Clemens Steinwender8,9, Christophe Garweg10, Larry Chinitz11, Christopher R Ellis12, Kurt Stromberg13, Dedra H Fagan13, Lluis Mont14,15. 1. Electrophysiology Section, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27710, USA. 2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 6. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 7. Kyorin University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 8. Kepler University Hospital, Linz, Austria. 9. Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 10. University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 11. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 12. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, TN, USA. 13. Medtronic, Inc., Mounds View, MN, USA. 14. Institut Clinic Cardiovascular (ICCV), Hospital Clinic, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut per la Recera Biomèdica IDIBAPS, Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. 15. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
AIMS: There is limited information on what clinical factors are associated with the development of pericardial effusion after leadless pacemaker implantation. We sought to determine predictors of and to develop a risk score for pericardial effusion in patients undergoing Micra leadless pacemaker implantation attempt. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 2817) undergoing implant attempt from the Micra global trials were analysed. Characteristics were compared between patients with and without pericardial effusion (including cardiac perforation and tamponade). A risk score for pericardial effusion was developed from 18 pre-procedural clinical variables using lasso logistic regression. Internal validation and future prediction performance were estimated using bootstrap resampling. The scoring system was also externally validated using data from the Micra Acute Performance European and Middle East (MAP EMEA) registry. There were 32 patients with a pericardial effusion [1.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-1.6%]. Following lasso logistic regression, 11 of 18 variables remained in the model from which point values were assigned. The C-index was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88). Patient risk score profile ranged from -4 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk) with 71.8% patients considered low risk (risk score ≤0), 16.6% considered medium risk (risk score = 1), and 11.7% considered high risk (risk score ≥2) for effusion. The median C-index following bootstrap validation was 0.73 (interquartile range: 0.70-0.75). The C-index based on 9 pericardial effusions from the 928 patients in the MAP EMEA registry was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52-0.83). The pericardial effusion rate increased significantly with additional Micra deployments in medium-risk (P = 0.034) and high-risk (P < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of pericardial effusion following Micra implantation attempt is 1.1% and has decreased over time. The risk of pericardial effusion after Micra implant attempt can be predicted using pre-procedural clinical characteristics with reasonable discrimination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Micra Post-Approval Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118), Micra Continued Access Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488681), and Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873).
AIMS: There is limited information on what clinical factors are associated with the development of pericardial effusion after leadless pacemaker implantation. We sought to determine predictors of and to develop a risk score for pericardial effusion in patients undergoing Micra leadless pacemaker implantation attempt. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 2817) undergoing implant attempt from the Micra global trials were analysed. Characteristics were compared between patients with and without pericardial effusion (including cardiac perforation and tamponade). A risk score for pericardial effusion was developed from 18 pre-procedural clinical variables using lasso logistic regression. Internal validation and future prediction performance were estimated using bootstrap resampling. The scoring system was also externally validated using data from the Micra Acute Performance European and Middle East (MAP EMEA) registry. There were 32 patients with a pericardial effusion [1.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-1.6%]. Following lasso logistic regression, 11 of 18 variables remained in the model from which point values were assigned. The C-index was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88). Patient risk score profile ranged from -4 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk) with 71.8% patients considered low risk (risk score ≤0), 16.6% considered medium risk (risk score = 1), and 11.7% considered high risk (risk score ≥2) for effusion. The median C-index following bootstrap validation was 0.73 (interquartile range: 0.70-0.75). The C-index based on 9 pericardial effusions from the 928 patients in the MAP EMEA registry was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52-0.83). The pericardial effusion rate increased significantly with additional Micra deployments in medium-risk (P = 0.034) and high-risk (P < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of pericardial effusion following Micra implantation attempt is 1.1% and has decreased over time. The risk of pericardial effusion after Micra implant attempt can be predicted using pre-procedural clinical characteristics with reasonable discrimination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Micra Post-Approval Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118), Micra Continued Access Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488681), and Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873).
Authors: Daniel J Cantillon; Srinivas R Dukkipati; John H Ip; Derek V Exner; Imran K Niazi; Rajesh S Banker; Mayer Rashtian; Kenneth Plunkitt; Gery F Tomassoni; Yelena Nabutovsky; Kevin J Davis; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Erik O Udo; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Norbert M van Hemel; Carel C de Cock; Thijs Hendriks; Pieter A Doevendans; Karel G M Moons Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Mikhael F El-Chami; Nicolas Clementy; Christophe Garweg; Razali Omar; Gabor Z Duray; Charles C Gornick; Francisco Leyva; Venkata Sagi; Jonathan P Piccini; Kyoko Soejima; Kurt Stromberg; Paul R Roberts Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Jamil Bashir; Arthur J Lee; Francois Philippon; Blandine Mondesert; Andrew D Krahn; Mouhannad M Sadek; Derek Exner; Melissa Pak; Jean Francois Legare; Shahzad Karim; Lynn Fedoruk; Defen Peng; Robert J Cusimano; Ratika Parkash; G Frank O Tyers; Jason Andrade Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 6.779
Authors: John Rickard; Milos Taborsky; David Bello; W B Johnson; Brian Ramza; Yanping Chang; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Robert G Hauser; Charles C Gornick; Raed H Abdelhadi; Chuen Y Tang; Susan A Casey; Jay D Sengupta Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Mikhael El-Chami; Kael Wherry; George H Crossley; Robert C Kowal; Kurt Stromberg; Colleen Longacre; Jennifer Hinnenthal; Lindsay Bockstedt Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676