Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. 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.

  2. 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 

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links