The Micra AV leadless pacemaker significantly reduced 12-month major complications (3.7% vs 8.8%; HR 0.42) and system revisions (1.5% vs 5.5%) compared to transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers.
Does the Micra AV leadless pacemaker reduce major complications and system revisions compared to transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers in patients requiring pacing?
The Micra AV leadless pacemaker demonstrated a significantly lower rate of major complications and system revisions at 12 months compared to a historical cohort of transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
BACKGROUND: Advances in leadless pacemaker technology have enabled accelerometer-based atrioventricular (AV) synchronous pacing by sensing atrial mechanical contraction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the performance of the Micra AV leadless pacemaker from the worldwide Micra AV post-approval registry (PAR) through 12 months. METHODS: The Micra AV PAR is a prospective, single-arm, observational registry designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of Micra AV in a real-world setting. For the present interim analysis, major complications and system revisions through 12 months were summarized and compared to a historical cohort of 2667 patients implanted with a transvenous dual-chamber pacing system. RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in 796 of 801 patients (99.4%) at 97 centers in 19 countries. Micra AV patients were older (74.1 years vs 71.1 years; P 90%. CONCLUSION: The Micra AV leadless pacemaker was implanted with a high rate of success in patients with multiple comorbidities, with a significantly lower rate of complications and system revisions through 12 months compared to a historical cohort of patients with transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers.
Garweg et al. (Thu,) reported a other. The Micra AV leadless pacemaker significantly reduced 12-month major complications (3.7% vs 8.8%; HR 0.42) and system revisions (1.5% vs 5.5%) compared to transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: