Abstract
Introduction: The Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) Study is a novel comparative analysis of Micra (leadless VVI) and transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemakers (transvenous VVI) using administrative claims data. To compare chronic complications, device reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality after 3 years of follow-up. Methods: US Medicare claims data linked to manufacturer device registration information were used to identify Medicare beneficiaries with a de novo implant of either a Micra VR leadless VVI or transvenous VVI pacemaker from March 9, 2017 to December 31, 2018. Unadjusted and propensity score overlap-weight adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to compare outcomes at 3 years. Results: Leadless VVI patients (N = 6219) had a 32% lower rate of chronic complications and a 41% lower rate of reintervention compared with transvenous VVI patients (N = 10 212) (chronic complication hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59−0.78; reintervention HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.44−0.78). Infections rates were significantly lower among patients with a leadless VVI (<0.2% vs. 0.7%, p
Author supplied keywords
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Crossley, G. H., Piccini, J. P., Longacre, C., Higuera, L., Stromberg, K., & El-Chami, M. F. (2023). Leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacemakers: 3 year follow-up of the Micra CED study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 34(4), 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15863
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.