Ali Bahbah, Jay Sengupta, Melanie Kapphahn-Bergs, Dawn Witt, Edwin Zishiri, Scott Sharkey, Dimitrios Strepkos, Michaella Alexandrou, Raed Abdelhadi, Robert Hauser
{"title":"两种右心室无导联起搏器手术相关不良事件的比较。","authors":"Ali Bahbah, Jay Sengupta, Melanie Kapphahn-Bergs, Dawn Witt, Edwin Zishiri, Scott Sharkey, Dimitrios Strepkos, Michaella Alexandrou, Raed Abdelhadi, Robert Hauser","doi":"10.1111/jce.16458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers.\",\"authors\":\"Ali Bahbah, Jay Sengupta, Melanie Kapphahn-Bergs, Dawn Witt, Edwin Zishiri, Scott Sharkey, Dimitrios Strepkos, Michaella Alexandrou, Raed Abdelhadi, Robert Hauser\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.16458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16458\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16458","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of procedure-related adverse events between two right ventricular leadless pacemakers.
Introduction: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: 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.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.