Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients
Introduction Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel pacemaker that has been proven to be effective and safe; however, the majority of LPs in previous reports were the Medtronic Micra™ VR LP. We aim to evaluate the implant efficiency and clinical performance of the Aveir™ VR LP compared to the Micra™ VR...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 2023-08, Vol.46 (8), p.827-832 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 832 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 827 |
| container_title | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Tokavanich, Nithi Machado, Christian Banga, Sandeep Smiles, Katelyn Dhar, Anya Ali, Abbas Ali, Mohammed Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar Ip, John |
| description | Introduction
Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel pacemaker that has been proven to be effective and safe; however, the majority of LPs in previous reports were the Medtronic Micra™ VR LP. We aim to evaluate the implant efficiency and clinical performance of the Aveir™ VR LP compared to the Micra™ VR LP.
Method
We performed a retrospective analysis in two healthcare systems (Sparrow Hospital and Ascension Health System, Michigan) in patients implanted with LPs between January 1, 2018, and April 1, 2022. The parameters were collected at implantation, 3 months and 6 months.
Results
A total of 67 patients were included in the study. The Micra™ VR group had shorter time in the electrophysiology lab (41 ± 12 vs. 55 ± 11.5 min, p = .008) and shorter fluoroscopic time (6.5 ± 2.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.5 min, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/pace.14766 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2831297701</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2848645129</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-3eb863e528be12361c014f89c458cab7d7b183d8e113bb08c3348f8f8a41b0a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9O3DAQxq2KqizbXvoAyBIXhBRqx47jcItWC6y0iKpqe40cZyIZnD-1k0V77wPwDDxanwSH3XLgwPgwsvWbb8bzIfSVknMa4luvNJxTngrxAc1owkkkaZIdoBkJj5FkMjtER97fEUIE4ckndMhSJmOWiRl6XDW9Ve2Aoa6NNtDqLVZthbU1rdHK4h5c3blGtRpwV-N8A8b9-_uEf_944W6Mdmp_t6AqC97jaaBG3YO7wDluRjsYDe0ADuuu6ZVTg9lAqFZ2642fVEUaaobQffCf0cdaWQ9f9nmOfl0ufy6uo_Xt1WqRryPNklREDEopGCSxLIHGTFAdPlvLTPNEalWmVVpSySoJlLKyJFIzxmUdjuK0JIqzOTrd6fau-zOCH4rGeA02LAO60RexZDTO0pTQgJ68Qe-60YXxJ4pLwZNABupsR2nXee-gLnpnGuW2BSXF5FMxraV48SnAx3vJsWygekX_GxMAugMejIXtO1LF93yx3Ik-Ax9Tn3k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2848645129</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Tokavanich, Nithi ; Machado, Christian ; Banga, Sandeep ; Smiles, Katelyn ; Dhar, Anya ; Ali, Abbas ; Ali, Mohammed ; Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar ; Ip, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Tokavanich, Nithi ; Machado, Christian ; Banga, Sandeep ; Smiles, Katelyn ; Dhar, Anya ; Ali, Abbas ; Ali, Mohammed ; Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar ; Ip, John</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel pacemaker that has been proven to be effective and safe; however, the majority of LPs in previous reports were the Medtronic Micra™ VR LP. We aim to evaluate the implant efficiency and clinical performance of the Aveir™ VR LP compared to the Micra™ VR LP.
Method
We performed a retrospective analysis in two healthcare systems (Sparrow Hospital and Ascension Health System, Michigan) in patients implanted with LPs between January 1, 2018, and April 1, 2022. The parameters were collected at implantation, 3 months and 6 months.
Results
A total of 67 patients were included in the study. The Micra™ VR group had shorter time in the electrophysiology lab (41 ± 12 vs. 55 ± 11.5 min, p = .008) and shorter fluoroscopic time (6.5 ± 2.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.5 min, p < .001) compared to the Aveir™ VR group. The Aveir™ VR group had a significantly higher implant pacing threshold compared to the Micra™ VR group (0.74 ± 0.34 mA vs. 0.5 ± 0.18 mA at pulse width 0.4 ms, p < .001), but no difference was found at 3 months and 6 months. There was no significant difference in the R‐wave sensing and impedance and pacing percentage at implantation, 3 months, and 6 months. Complications of the procedure were rare. The mean projected longevity of the Aveir™ VR group was longer than the Micra™ VR group (18.8 ± 4.3 vs. 7.7 ± 0.75 years, p < .001).
Conclusion
Implantation of the Aveir™ VR required longer laboratory and fluoroscopic time, but showed longer longevity at 6 months follow‐up, compare to the Micra™ VR. Complications and lead dislodgement are rare.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0147-8389</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-8159</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/pace.14766</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37382396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aveir™ VR ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods ; Comparative analysis ; Electrophysiology ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; leadless pacemaker ; Lipopolysaccharides ; Longevity ; Micra™ VR ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Pacemakers ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Virtual Reality</subject><ispartof>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology, 2023-08, Vol.46 (8), p.827-832</ispartof><rights>2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-3eb863e528be12361c014f89c458cab7d7b183d8e113bb08c3348f8f8a41b0a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-3eb863e528be12361c014f89c458cab7d7b183d8e113bb08c3348f8f8a41b0a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1846-3786</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fpace.14766$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fpace.14766$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37382396$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tokavanich, Nithi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machado, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banga, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smiles, Katelyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhar, Anya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali, Abbas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ip, John</creatorcontrib><title>Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients</title><title>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</title><addtitle>Pacing Clin Electrophysiol</addtitle><description>Introduction
Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel pacemaker that has been proven to be effective and safe; however, the majority of LPs in previous reports were the Medtronic Micra™ VR LP. We aim to evaluate the implant efficiency and clinical performance of the Aveir™ VR LP compared to the Micra™ VR LP.
Method
We performed a retrospective analysis in two healthcare systems (Sparrow Hospital and Ascension Health System, Michigan) in patients implanted with LPs between January 1, 2018, and April 1, 2022. The parameters were collected at implantation, 3 months and 6 months.
Results
A total of 67 patients were included in the study. The Micra™ VR group had shorter time in the electrophysiology lab (41 ± 12 vs. 55 ± 11.5 min, p = .008) and shorter fluoroscopic time (6.5 ± 2.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.5 min, p < .001) compared to the Aveir™ VR group. The Aveir™ VR group had a significantly higher implant pacing threshold compared to the Micra™ VR group (0.74 ± 0.34 mA vs. 0.5 ± 0.18 mA at pulse width 0.4 ms, p < .001), but no difference was found at 3 months and 6 months. There was no significant difference in the R‐wave sensing and impedance and pacing percentage at implantation, 3 months, and 6 months. Complications of the procedure were rare. The mean projected longevity of the Aveir™ VR group was longer than the Micra™ VR group (18.8 ± 4.3 vs. 7.7 ± 0.75 years, p < .001).
Conclusion
Implantation of the Aveir™ VR required longer laboratory and fluoroscopic time, but showed longer longevity at 6 months follow‐up, compare to the Micra™ VR. Complications and lead dislodgement are rare.</description><subject>Aveir™ VR</subject><subject>Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Electrophysiology</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>leadless pacemaker</subject><subject>Lipopolysaccharides</subject><subject>Longevity</subject><subject>Micra™ VR</subject><subject>Pacemaker, Artificial</subject><subject>Pacemakers</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Virtual Reality</subject><issn>0147-8389</issn><issn>1540-8159</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9O3DAQxq2KqizbXvoAyBIXhBRqx47jcItWC6y0iKpqe40cZyIZnD-1k0V77wPwDDxanwSH3XLgwPgwsvWbb8bzIfSVknMa4luvNJxTngrxAc1owkkkaZIdoBkJj5FkMjtER97fEUIE4ckndMhSJmOWiRl6XDW9Ve2Aoa6NNtDqLVZthbU1rdHK4h5c3blGtRpwV-N8A8b9-_uEf_944W6Mdmp_t6AqC97jaaBG3YO7wDluRjsYDe0ADuuu6ZVTg9lAqFZ2642fVEUaaobQffCf0cdaWQ9f9nmOfl0ufy6uo_Xt1WqRryPNklREDEopGCSxLIHGTFAdPlvLTPNEalWmVVpSySoJlLKyJFIzxmUdjuK0JIqzOTrd6fau-zOCH4rGeA02LAO60RexZDTO0pTQgJ68Qe-60YXxJ4pLwZNABupsR2nXee-gLnpnGuW2BSXF5FMxraV48SnAx3vJsWygekX_GxMAugMejIXtO1LF93yx3Ik-Ax9Tn3k</recordid><startdate>202308</startdate><enddate>202308</enddate><creator>Tokavanich, Nithi</creator><creator>Machado, Christian</creator><creator>Banga, Sandeep</creator><creator>Smiles, Katelyn</creator><creator>Dhar, Anya</creator><creator>Ali, Abbas</creator><creator>Ali, Mohammed</creator><creator>Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar</creator><creator>Ip, John</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-3786</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202308</creationdate><title>Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients</title><author>Tokavanich, Nithi ; Machado, Christian ; Banga, Sandeep ; Smiles, Katelyn ; Dhar, Anya ; Ali, Abbas ; Ali, Mohammed ; Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar ; Ip, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-3eb863e528be12361c014f89c458cab7d7b183d8e113bb08c3348f8f8a41b0a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Aveir™ VR</topic><topic>Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Electrophysiology</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>leadless pacemaker</topic><topic>Lipopolysaccharides</topic><topic>Longevity</topic><topic>Micra™ VR</topic><topic>Pacemaker, Artificial</topic><topic>Pacemakers</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Virtual Reality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tokavanich, Nithi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machado, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banga, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smiles, Katelyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhar, Anya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali, Abbas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ip, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tokavanich, Nithi</au><au>Machado, Christian</au><au>Banga, Sandeep</au><au>Smiles, Katelyn</au><au>Dhar, Anya</au><au>Ali, Abbas</au><au>Ali, Mohammed</au><au>Qutrio Baloch, Zulfiqar</au><au>Ip, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients</atitle><jtitle>Pacing and clinical electrophysiology</jtitle><addtitle>Pacing Clin Electrophysiol</addtitle><date>2023-08</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>827</spage><epage>832</epage><pages>827-832</pages><issn>0147-8389</issn><eissn>1540-8159</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel pacemaker that has been proven to be effective and safe; however, the majority of LPs in previous reports were the Medtronic Micra™ VR LP. We aim to evaluate the implant efficiency and clinical performance of the Aveir™ VR LP compared to the Micra™ VR LP.
Method
We performed a retrospective analysis in two healthcare systems (Sparrow Hospital and Ascension Health System, Michigan) in patients implanted with LPs between January 1, 2018, and April 1, 2022. The parameters were collected at implantation, 3 months and 6 months.
Results
A total of 67 patients were included in the study. The Micra™ VR group had shorter time in the electrophysiology lab (41 ± 12 vs. 55 ± 11.5 min, p = .008) and shorter fluoroscopic time (6.5 ± 2.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.5 min, p < .001) compared to the Aveir™ VR group. The Aveir™ VR group had a significantly higher implant pacing threshold compared to the Micra™ VR group (0.74 ± 0.34 mA vs. 0.5 ± 0.18 mA at pulse width 0.4 ms, p < .001), but no difference was found at 3 months and 6 months. There was no significant difference in the R‐wave sensing and impedance and pacing percentage at implantation, 3 months, and 6 months. Complications of the procedure were rare. The mean projected longevity of the Aveir™ VR group was longer than the Micra™ VR group (18.8 ± 4.3 vs. 7.7 ± 0.75 years, p < .001).
Conclusion
Implantation of the Aveir™ VR required longer laboratory and fluoroscopic time, but showed longer longevity at 6 months follow‐up, compare to the Micra™ VR. Complications and lead dislodgement are rare.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>37382396</pmid><doi>10.1111/pace.14766</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-3786</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0147-8389 |
| ispartof | Pacing and clinical electrophysiology, 2023-08, Vol.46 (8), p.827-832 |
| issn | 0147-8389 1540-8159 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2831297701 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Aveir™ VR Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods Comparative analysis Electrophysiology Equipment Design Humans leadless pacemaker Lipopolysaccharides Longevity Micra™ VR Pacemaker, Artificial Pacemakers Patients Retrospective Studies Virtual Reality |
| title | Implant efficiency and clinical performance of Aveir™ VR and Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker: A multicenter comparative analysis of 67 patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T09%3A07%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implant%20efficiency%20and%20clinical%20performance%20of%20Aveir%E2%84%A2%20VR%20and%20Micra%E2%84%A2%20VR%20leadless%20pacemaker:%20A%20multicenter%20comparative%20analysis%20of%2067%20patients&rft.jtitle=Pacing%20and%20clinical%20electrophysiology&rft.au=Tokavanich,%20Nithi&rft.date=2023-08&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=827&rft.epage=832&rft.pages=827-832&rft.issn=0147-8389&rft.eissn=1540-8159&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/pace.14766&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2848645129%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2848645129&rft_id=info:pmid/37382396&rfr_iscdi=true |