A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers
The Medtronic Micra VR and Abbott AVEIR VR are the leadless pacemakers (LPM) currently available in the United States (US). Micra VR employs fixation tines and the AVEIR VR uses an active fixation helix. Micra VR requires fixation before electrical measurements are obtained, while R-waves may be map...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2024-10 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology |
container_volume | |
creator | Bahbah, Ali Sengupta, Jay Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie Witt, Dawn Zishiri, Edwin Sharkey, Scott Strepkos, Dimitrios Alexandrou, Michaella Abdelhadi, Raed Hauser, Robert |
description | The Medtronic Micra VR and Abbott AVEIR VR are the leadless pacemakers (LPM) currently available in the United States (US). Micra VR employs fixation tines and the AVEIR VR uses an active fixation helix. Micra VR requires fixation before electrical measurements are obtained, while R-waves may be mapped by AVEIR VR without fixation. Little comparative data is available for these LPMs. Accordingly, we compared the incidences of procedure-related major adverse clinical events (MACE) and device problems in the US for Micra VR and AVEIR VR during 2022-2024.
We searched the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for US reports of MACE and device problems that were filed from April 2022 to December 2023 for AVEIR VR, and from June 2022 to April 2024 for Micra VR. Totals for US-registered LPM implants were obtained from the manufacturers' product performance reports.
During the study period, 5990 AVEIR VR and 10 940 Micra VR implants were registered in the US. We found 305 MAUDE reports for AVEIR VR (5.1%), versus 541 MAUDE reports for Micra VR (4.9%) (p = .702). The incidence of MACE was 0.72% (43/5990) for AVEIR VR versus 0.59% (65/10 940) for Micra VR, (p = .387). The incidences of procedure-related death, cardiac perforation. cardiac arrest, emergency pericardial drainage or reparative surgery were similar for both LPMs (p > .05). Micra VR had more unacceptable thresholds requiring LPM replacement compared to AVEIR VR (95;0.9% vs. 24;0.4%; p = .001). AVEIR VR had a statistically higher incidence of device dislodgement during (32) and after (21) implant compared to Micra VR (53 (0.9%) vs. 46 (0.4%), p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jce.16458 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3116335876</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3116335876</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c175t-cf7dfb8b8dfcb802519736e8e3650e9f3267a9ec7ad681fb20bedc3c230790893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kMlOAzEMQCMEoqVw4AdQjnAYSCbNMseqYpMqcYHzKIsDU2YjmWnF35PSgi-2rGfLfghdUnJLU9ytLdxSMefqCE0pn5NMUSGPU03mPGNKsgk6i3FNCGWC8FM0YQUrJOP5FJkFtl3T61DFrsWdx33oLLgxQBag1gM4rN0GQgQMG2iHiA0MW4AWD9sOh-r9Y8C7fqjsWOuAa9Cuhhhxry00-jNNnqMTr-sIF4c8Q28P96_Lp2z18vi8XKwySyUfMuul80YZ5bw1iuScphMFKGCCEyg8y4XUBVipnVDUm5wYcJbZnBFZEFWwGbre700vfI0Qh7KpooW61i10YywZpYIxrqRI6M0etaGLMYAv-1A1OnyXlJQ7pWVSWv4qTezVYe1oGnD_5J9D9gNpbHN2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3116335876</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Bahbah, Ali ; Sengupta, Jay ; Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie ; Witt, Dawn ; Zishiri, Edwin ; Sharkey, Scott ; Strepkos, Dimitrios ; Alexandrou, Michaella ; Abdelhadi, Raed ; Hauser, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Bahbah, Ali ; Sengupta, Jay ; Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie ; Witt, Dawn ; Zishiri, Edwin ; Sharkey, Scott ; Strepkos, Dimitrios ; Alexandrou, Michaella ; Abdelhadi, Raed ; Hauser, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>The Medtronic Micra VR and Abbott AVEIR VR are the leadless pacemakers (LPM) currently available in the United States (US). Micra VR employs fixation tines and the AVEIR VR uses an active fixation helix. Micra VR requires fixation before electrical measurements are obtained, while R-waves may be mapped by AVEIR VR without fixation. Little comparative data is available for these LPMs. Accordingly, we compared the incidences of procedure-related major adverse clinical events (MACE) and device problems in the US for Micra VR and AVEIR VR during 2022-2024.
We searched the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for US reports of MACE and device problems that were filed from April 2022 to December 2023 for AVEIR VR, and from June 2022 to April 2024 for Micra VR. Totals for US-registered LPM implants were obtained from the manufacturers' product performance reports.
During the study period, 5990 AVEIR VR and 10 940 Micra VR implants were registered in the US. We found 305 MAUDE reports for AVEIR VR (5.1%), versus 541 MAUDE reports for Micra VR (4.9%) (p = .702). The incidence of MACE was 0.72% (43/5990) for AVEIR VR versus 0.59% (65/10 940) for Micra VR, (p = .387). The incidences of procedure-related death, cardiac perforation. cardiac arrest, emergency pericardial drainage or reparative surgery were similar for both LPMs (p > .05). Micra VR had more unacceptable thresholds requiring LPM replacement compared to AVEIR VR (95;0.9% vs. 24;0.4%; p = .001). AVEIR VR had a statistically higher incidence of device dislodgement during (32) and after (21) implant compared to Micra VR (53 (0.9%) vs. 46 (0.4%), p < .001).
Micra VR and AVEIR VR have similar procedural safety profiles, including the incidences of death and perforation. However, device problems differed significantly, possibly related to their design differences. Compared to Micra VR, AVEIR VR appears to have an advantageous threshold measurement capability but is more prone to device dislodgement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1045-3873</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1540-8167</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-8167</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jce.16458</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39397352</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2024-10</ispartof><rights>2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c175t-cf7dfb8b8dfcb802519736e8e3650e9f3267a9ec7ad681fb20bedc3c230790893</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8117-8190 ; 0000-0001-9172-1089</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39397352$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bahbah, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sengupta, Jay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witt, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zishiri, Edwin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharkey, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strepkos, Dimitrios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexandrou, Michaella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelhadi, Raed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hauser, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers</title><title>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</title><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol</addtitle><description>The Medtronic Micra VR and Abbott AVEIR VR are the leadless pacemakers (LPM) currently available in the United States (US). Micra VR employs fixation tines and the AVEIR VR uses an active fixation helix. Micra VR requires fixation before electrical measurements are obtained, while R-waves may be mapped by AVEIR VR without fixation. Little comparative data is available for these LPMs. Accordingly, we compared the incidences of procedure-related major adverse clinical events (MACE) and device problems in the US for Micra VR and AVEIR VR during 2022-2024.
We searched the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for US reports of MACE and device problems that were filed from April 2022 to December 2023 for AVEIR VR, and from June 2022 to April 2024 for Micra VR. Totals for US-registered LPM implants were obtained from the manufacturers' product performance reports.
During the study period, 5990 AVEIR VR and 10 940 Micra VR implants were registered in the US. We found 305 MAUDE reports for AVEIR VR (5.1%), versus 541 MAUDE reports for Micra VR (4.9%) (p = .702). The incidence of MACE was 0.72% (43/5990) for AVEIR VR versus 0.59% (65/10 940) for Micra VR, (p = .387). The incidences of procedure-related death, cardiac perforation. cardiac arrest, emergency pericardial drainage or reparative surgery were similar for both LPMs (p > .05). Micra VR had more unacceptable thresholds requiring LPM replacement compared to AVEIR VR (95;0.9% vs. 24;0.4%; p = .001). AVEIR VR had a statistically higher incidence of device dislodgement during (32) and after (21) implant compared to Micra VR (53 (0.9%) vs. 46 (0.4%), p < .001).
Micra VR and AVEIR VR have similar procedural safety profiles, including the incidences of death and perforation. However, device problems differed significantly, possibly related to their design differences. Compared to Micra VR, AVEIR VR appears to have an advantageous threshold measurement capability but is more prone to device dislodgement.</description><issn>1045-3873</issn><issn>1540-8167</issn><issn>1540-8167</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kMlOAzEMQCMEoqVw4AdQjnAYSCbNMseqYpMqcYHzKIsDU2YjmWnF35PSgi-2rGfLfghdUnJLU9ytLdxSMefqCE0pn5NMUSGPU03mPGNKsgk6i3FNCGWC8FM0YQUrJOP5FJkFtl3T61DFrsWdx33oLLgxQBag1gM4rN0GQgQMG2iHiA0MW4AWD9sOh-r9Y8C7fqjsWOuAa9Cuhhhxry00-jNNnqMTr-sIF4c8Q28P96_Lp2z18vi8XKwySyUfMuul80YZ5bw1iuScphMFKGCCEyg8y4XUBVipnVDUm5wYcJbZnBFZEFWwGbre700vfI0Qh7KpooW61i10YywZpYIxrqRI6M0etaGLMYAv-1A1OnyXlJQ7pWVSWv4qTezVYe1oGnD_5J9D9gNpbHN2</recordid><startdate>20241013</startdate><enddate>20241013</enddate><creator>Bahbah, Ali</creator><creator>Sengupta, Jay</creator><creator>Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie</creator><creator>Witt, Dawn</creator><creator>Zishiri, Edwin</creator><creator>Sharkey, Scott</creator><creator>Strepkos, Dimitrios</creator><creator>Alexandrou, Michaella</creator><creator>Abdelhadi, Raed</creator><creator>Hauser, Robert</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8117-8190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9172-1089</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241013</creationdate><title>A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers</title><author>Bahbah, Ali ; Sengupta, Jay ; Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie ; Witt, Dawn ; Zishiri, Edwin ; Sharkey, Scott ; Strepkos, Dimitrios ; Alexandrou, Michaella ; Abdelhadi, Raed ; Hauser, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c175t-cf7dfb8b8dfcb802519736e8e3650e9f3267a9ec7ad681fb20bedc3c230790893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bahbah, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sengupta, Jay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witt, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zishiri, Edwin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharkey, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strepkos, Dimitrios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexandrou, Michaella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelhadi, Raed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hauser, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bahbah, Ali</au><au>Sengupta, Jay</au><au>Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie</au><au>Witt, Dawn</au><au>Zishiri, Edwin</au><au>Sharkey, Scott</au><au>Strepkos, Dimitrios</au><au>Alexandrou, Michaella</au><au>Abdelhadi, Raed</au><au>Hauser, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol</addtitle><date>2024-10-13</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>1045-3873</issn><issn>1540-8167</issn><eissn>1540-8167</eissn><abstract>The Medtronic Micra VR and Abbott AVEIR VR are the leadless pacemakers (LPM) currently available in the United States (US). Micra VR employs fixation tines and the AVEIR VR uses an active fixation helix. Micra VR requires fixation before electrical measurements are obtained, while R-waves may be mapped by AVEIR VR without fixation. Little comparative data is available for these LPMs. Accordingly, we compared the incidences of procedure-related major adverse clinical events (MACE) and device problems in the US for Micra VR and AVEIR VR during 2022-2024.
We searched the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for US reports of MACE and device problems that were filed from April 2022 to December 2023 for AVEIR VR, and from June 2022 to April 2024 for Micra VR. Totals for US-registered LPM implants were obtained from the manufacturers' product performance reports.
During the study period, 5990 AVEIR VR and 10 940 Micra VR implants were registered in the US. We found 305 MAUDE reports for AVEIR VR (5.1%), versus 541 MAUDE reports for Micra VR (4.9%) (p = .702). The incidence of MACE was 0.72% (43/5990) for AVEIR VR versus 0.59% (65/10 940) for Micra VR, (p = .387). The incidences of procedure-related death, cardiac perforation. cardiac arrest, emergency pericardial drainage or reparative surgery were similar for both LPMs (p > .05). Micra VR had more unacceptable thresholds requiring LPM replacement compared to AVEIR VR (95;0.9% vs. 24;0.4%; p = .001). AVEIR VR had a statistically higher incidence of device dislodgement during (32) and after (21) implant compared to Micra VR (53 (0.9%) vs. 46 (0.4%), p < .001).
Micra VR and AVEIR VR have similar procedural safety profiles, including the incidences of death and perforation. However, device problems differed significantly, possibly related to their design differences. Compared to Micra VR, AVEIR VR appears to have an advantageous threshold measurement capability but is more prone to device dislodgement.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>39397352</pmid><doi>10.1111/jce.16458</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8117-8190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9172-1089</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1045-3873 |
ispartof | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2024-10 |
issn | 1045-3873 1540-8167 1540-8167 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3116335876 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
title | A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T20%3A14%3A43IST&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=A%20comparison%20of%20procedure-related%20adverse%20events%20between%20two%20right%20ventricular%20leadless%20pacemakers&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cardiovascular%20electrophysiology&rft.au=Bahbah,%20Ali&rft.date=2024-10-13&rft.issn=1045-3873&rft.eissn=1540-8167&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jce.16458&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3116335876%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=3116335876&rft_id=info:pmid/39397352&rfr_iscdi=true |