Key result
Micra AV linked to ~51% fewer major complications versus transvenous pacemakers.
Why the study?
The study was designed to assess the safety and performance of the Micra AV leadless pacemaker providing atrioventricular synchronous pacing in a real-world setting through 3 years post-implant.
Does the Micra AV leadless pacemaker reduce major complications and system revisions compared to transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers in patients requiring pacing?
Observational (n=801)
Yes
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 low rate of pacemaker syndrome requiring revision and significantly fewer major complications compared to a historical cohort of transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers at 3 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
1% pacemaker syndrome revision rate with Micra AV may support selected use; leaves open randomized comparison versus transvenous systems.
Garweg et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Patients requiring atrioventricular synchronous pacing (n=801). Micra AV leadless pacemaker vs. Historical cohort of 2,667 transvenous dual-chamber (TV-DC) pacing patients was evaluated on Rate of pacemaker syndrome resulting in system revision at 3 years post-implant (95% CI 0.4-1.9). The Micra AV leadless pacemaker had a 1.0% 3-year rate of pacemaker syndrome requiring revision and reduced major complications compared to transvenous pacemakers (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.35-0.68; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: