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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2024-10
Hauptverfasser: Bahbah, Ali, Sengupta, Jay, Kapphahn-Bergs, Melanie, Witt, Dawn, Zishiri, Edwin, Sharkey, Scott, Strepkos, Dimitrios, Alexandrou, Michaella, Abdelhadi, Raed, Hauser, Robert
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 &gt; .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 &lt; .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 &gt; .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 &lt; .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 &gt; .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 &lt; .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