Key result
The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System had a 24-month system revision rate of 1.4%, which was 75% lower than the 5.3% rate in patients with transvenous pacemakers (P < .001).
Why the study?
Does the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System reduce system revision rates compared to transvenous pacemakers?
Population
n=3,656 patients
Comparison
Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS) vs Transvenous pacemakers (TVPs)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
24 months
Authors
Loading...
May favor leadless pacing to reduce revisions; observational data leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=3,656)
Does the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System reduce system revision rates compared to transvenous pacemakers?
Effect estimate: 75% lower (95% CI 53%-87%)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.4% vs 5.3%
p-value: p=<.001
The Micra leadless pacemaker is associated with a significantly lower 24-month system revision rate compared to traditional transvenous pacemakers.
Grubman et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker indication (n=3,656). Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS) vs. Transvenous pacemakers (TVPs) was evaluated on System revision (retrieval/explant, repositioning, replacement, or electrical deactivation) (75% lower, 95% CI 53%-87%, p=<.001). The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System had a 24-month system revision rate of 1.4%, which was 75% lower than the 5.3% rate in patients with transvenous pacemakers (P < .001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: