Key result
Non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation was feasible and maintained optimal pacing thresholds comparable to apical implantation (0.52 vs. 0.50 V/0.24 ms; P=0.856) at long-term follow-up.
Why the study?
Does non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation provide stable long-term electrical performance compared to apical implantation in patients requiring pacing?
Population
52 consecutive patients undergoing Micra pacemaker implantation, including post-extraction subjects and…
Comparison
Micra pacemaker implantation targeting a… vs Micra pacemaker implantation in an apical site…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 13 ± 9 months
Authors
Loading...
Non-apical Micra implantation is feasible; leaves open whether it improves outcomes versus apical sites in randomized trials.
Observational (n=52)
No
Does non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation provide stable long-term electrical performance compared to apical implantation in patients requiring pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.52% vs 0.5%
p-value: p=0.856
Non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation is feasible and maintains stable long-term electrical performance comparable to apical implantation, without device-related adverse events.
Bongiorni et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Indication for pacemaker implantation (n=52). Non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation vs. Apical Micra pacemaker implantation was evaluated on Pacing threshold at last follow-up (V/0.24 ms) (p=0.856). Non-apical Micra pacemaker implantation was feasible and maintained optimal pacing thresholds comparable to apical implantation (0.52 vs. 0.50 V/0.24 ms; P=0.856) at long-term follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: