OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the system's performance during treadmill tests to maximum exertion in a subset of patients within the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study.
METHODS: Patients underwent treadmill testing at 3 or 6 months postimplant with algorithm programming at physician discretion. Normalized sensor rate (SenR) relative to the programmed upper sensor rate was modeled as a function of normalized workload in metabolic equivalents (METS) relative to maximum METS achieved during the test. A normalized METS and SenR were determined at the end of each 1-minute treadmill stage. The proportionality of SenR to workload was evaluated by comparing the slope from this relationship to the prospectively defined tolerance margin (0.65-1.35).
RESULTS: A total of 69 treadmill tests were attempted by 42 patients at 3 and 6 months postimplant. Thirty tests from 20 patients who completed ≥4 stages with an average slope of 0.86 (90% confidence interval 0.77-0.96) confirmed proportionality to workload. On an individual test basis, 25 of 30 point estimates (83.3%) had a normalized slope within the defined tolerance range (range 0.46-1.08).
CONCLUSION: Accelerometer-based rate adaptive pacing was proportional to workload, thus confirming rate adaptive pacing commensurate to workload is achievable with an entirely intracardiac pacing system.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the natural history of acute elevated Micra vs traditional transvenous lead thresholds.
METHODS: Micra study VVI patients with threshold data (at 0.24 ms) at implant (n = 711) were compared with Capture study patients with de novo transvenous leads at 0.4 ms (n = 538). In both cohorts, high thresholds were defined as >1.0 V and very high as >1.5 V. Change in pacing threshold (0-6 months) with high (1.0 to ≤1.5 V) or very high (>1.5 V) thresholds were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: Of the 711 Micra patients, 83 (11.7%) had an implant threshold of >1.0 V at 0.24 ms. Of the 538 Capture patients, 50 (9.3%) had an implant threshold of >1.0 V at 0.40 ms. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between those with and without an implant threshold of >1.0 V, with the exception of left ventricular ejection fraction in the Capture cohort (high vs low thresholds, 53% vs 58%; P = .011). Patients with an implant threshold of >1.0 V decreased significantly (P < .001) in both cohorts. Micra patients with high and very high thresholds decreased significantly (P < .01) by 1 month, with 87% and 85% having 6-month thresholds lower than the implant value. However, when the capture threshold at implant was >2 V, only 18.2% had a threshold of ≤1 V at 6 months and 45.5% had a capture threshold of >2 V.
CONCLUSIONS: Pacing thresholds in most Micra patients with elevated thresholds decrease after implant. Micra device repositioning may not be necessary if the pacing threshold is ≤2 V.