MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext The rationale and design of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study: safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturized pacemaker

Ritter P, Duray GZ, Zhang S, Narasimhan C, Soejima K, Omar R, et al.

Europace, 2015 May;17(5):807-13.
PMID: 25855677 DOI: 10.1093/europace/euv026

Recent advances in miniaturization technologies and battery chemistries have made it possible to develop a pacemaker small enough to implant within the heart while still aiming to provide similar battery longevity to conventional pacemakers. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System is a miniaturized single-chamber pacemaker system that is delivered via catheter through the femoral vein. The pacemaker is implanted directly inside the right ventricle of the heart, eliminating the need for a device pocket and insertion of a pacing lead, thereby potentially avoiding some of the complications associated with traditional pacing systems.
Fulltext Early performance of a miniaturized leadless cardiac pacemaker: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study

Ritter P, Duray GZ, Steinwender C, Soejima K, Omar R, Mont L, et al.

Eur Heart J, 2015 Oct 1;36(37):2510-9.
PMID: 26045305 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv214

Permanent cardiac pacing is the only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia, but complications associated with conventional transvenous pacing systems are commonly related to the pacing lead and pocket. We describe the early performance of a novel self-contained miniaturized pacemaker.
Fulltext Long-term outcomes in leadless Micra transcatheter pacemakers with elevated thresholds at implantation: Results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Global Clinical Trial

Piccini JP, Stromberg K, Jackson KP, Laager V, Duray GZ, El-Chami M, et al.

Heart Rhythm, 2017 05;14(5):685-691.
PMID: 28111349 DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.01.026

BACKGROUND: Device repositioning during Micra leadless pacemaker implantation may be required to achieve optimal pacing thresholds.
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.
Fulltext A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system

Reynolds D, Duray GZ, Omar R, Soejima K, Neuzil P, Zhang S, et al.

N Engl J Med, 2016 Feb 11;374(6):533-41.
PMID: 26551877 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511643

BACKGROUND: A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system has been designed to avoid the need for a pacemaker pocket and transvenous lead.
METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study without controls, a transcatheter pacemaker was implanted in patients who had guideline-based indications for ventricular pacing. The analysis of the primary end points began when 300 patients reached 6 months of follow-up. The primary safety end point was freedom from system-related or procedure-related major complications. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with low and stable pacing capture thresholds at 6 months (≤2.0 V at a pulse width of 0.24 msec and an increase of ≤1.5 V from the time of implantation). The safety and efficacy end points were evaluated against performance goals (based on historical data) of 83% and 80%, respectively. We also performed a post hoc analysis in which the rates of major complications were compared with those in a control cohort of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers from six previously published studies.
RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in 719 of 725 patients (99.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary safety end point was 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.9 to 97.3; P<0.001 for the comparison with the safety performance goal of 83%); there were 28 major complications in 25 of 725 patients, and no dislodgements. The rate of the primary efficacy end point was 98.3% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.5; P<0.001 for the comparison with the efficacy performance goal of 80%) among 292 of 297 patients with paired 6-month data. Although there were 28 major complications in 25 patients, patients with transcatheter pacemakers had significantly fewer major complications than did the control patients (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.75; P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this historical comparison study, the transcatheter pacemaker met the prespecified safety and efficacy goals; it had a safety profile similar to that of a transvenous system while providing low and stable pacing thresholds. (Funded by Medtronic; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02004873.).