Two-year outcomes of Micra AV leadless pacemakers in the Micra AV CED study

17Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims. Leadless pacing is a safe and effective alternative to transvenous pacing for bradycardia. Micra AV is a leadless, single-device solution that provides atrioventricular synchronous ventricular pacing therapy. Early results from the Micra AV CED study showed reductions in short-term complications associated with the Micra AV leadless pacemaker among US Medicare patients. The objective of this study is to compare chronic complications, re-interventions, and all-cause mortality at 2 years between patients implanted with a Micra AV leadless pacemaker and a traditional dual-chamber transvenous (DC-TV) pacemaker. Methods and results. Patients implanted with a Micra AV leadless pacemaker (n = 7552) or a DC-TV pacemaker (n = 110 558) in 2020 and 2021 were identified using device registration-linked Medicare administrative claims data. Competing risk models compared the unadjusted and propensity score overlap weight–adjusted complication, re-intervention, and all-cause mortality rates of Micra AV and DC-TV patients at 2 years. Micra AV patients had significantly more comorbidities (end-stage renal disease 14.9 vs. 2.0%, P < 0.0001; renal dysfunction 47.9 vs. 34.2%, P < 0.0001; diabetes 46.2 vs. 38.3%, P < 0.001; congestive heart failure 41.4 vs. 30.6%, P < 0.0001). Two years post-implant, Micra AV patients had lower complication rates [adjusted 5.3 vs. 9.6%, hazard ratio (HR): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.61, P < 0.0001] and lower re-intervention rates (adjusted 3.5 vs. 5.6%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.54–0.72, P < 0.0001) than DC-TV patients. Upgrades to cardiac resynchronization therapy were low in both groups (adjusted 1.6 vs. 1.7%, P = 0.40), as were Micra AV upgrades to a dual-chamber system (adjusted 1.4%). All-cause mortality rates remained higher in Micra AV than in DC-TV patients (unadjusted HR: 2.48, 95% CI 2.35–2.62, P < 0.0001; adjusted HR: 1.53, 95% CI 1.44–1.62, P < 0.0001). Conclusion. Patients implanted with Micra AV had lower complications and re-intervention rates at 2 years than patients implanted with a traditional DC-TV pacemaker. All-cause mortality remained higher in Micra AV patients, likely due to their higher comorbidity burden and other differences in baseline characteristics.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

El-Chami, M. F., Higuera, L., Longacre, C., Stromberg, K., Crossley, G., & Piccini, J. P. (2024). Two-year outcomes of Micra AV leadless pacemakers in the Micra AV CED study. Europace, 26(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae273

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free