MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker

El-Chami MF, Clementy N, Garweg C, Omar R, Duray GZ, Gornick CC, et al.

JACC Clin Electrophysiol, 2019 02;5(2):162-170.
PMID: 30784685 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.12.008

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation.
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis.
METHODS: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized.
RESULTS: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia.
CONCLUSIONS: Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118).
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.
Patient selection, pacing indications, and subsequent outcomes with de novo leadless single-chamber VVI pacing

Piccini JP, Stromberg K, Jackson KP, Kowal RC, Duray GZ, El-Chami MF, et al.

Europace, 2019 Nov 01;21(11):1686-1693.
PMID: 31681964 DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz230

AIMS: Patient selection is a key component of securing optimal patient outcomes with leadless pacing. We sought to describe and compare patient characteristics and outcomes of Micra patients with and without a primary pacing indication associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Micra IDE trial.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome (risk of cardiac failure, pacemaker syndrome, or syncope related to the Micra system or procedure) was compared between successfully implanted patients from the Micra IDE trial with a primary pacing indication associated with AF or history of AF (AF group) and those without (non-AF group). Among 720 patients successfully implanted with Micra, 228 (31.7%) were in the non-AF group. Reasons for selecting VVI pacing in non-AF patients included an expectation for infrequent pacing (66.2%) and advanced age (27.2%). More patients in the non-AF group had a condition that precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker (9.6% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.013). Atrial fibrillation patients programmed to VVI received significantly more ventricular pacing compared to non-AF patients (median 67.8% vs. 12.6%; P
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.).