两种右心室无导联起搏器手术相关不良事件的比较。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-10-13 DOI:10.1111/jce.16458
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:美敦力 Micra VR 和雅培 AVEIR VR 是目前在美国上市的无导联心脏起搏器 (LPM)。Micra VR 采用固定齿,AVEIR VR 采用主动固定螺旋。Micra VR 需要固定后才能进行电测量,而 AVEIR VR 无需固定即可测绘 R 波。这些 LPM 的比较数据很少。因此,我们比较了 2022-2024 年期间美国 Micra VR 和 AVEIR VR 与手术相关的主要不良临床事件 (MACE) 和设备问题的发生率:我们在 FDA 的制造商和用户设施设备经验 (MAUDE) 数据库中搜索了 2022 年 4 月至 2023 年 12 月期间 AVEIR VR 在美国的 MACE 和设备问题报告,以及 2022 年 6 月至 2024 年 4 月期间 Micra VR 在美国的 MACE 和设备问题报告。美国注册的 LPM 植入物总数来自制造商的产品性能报告:研究期间,共有 5990 个 AVEIR VR 和 10940 个 Micra VR 植入体在美国注册。我们发现 AVEIR VR 有 305 份 MAUDE 报告(5.1%),而 Micra VR 有 541 份 MAUDE 报告(4.9%)(p = .702)。AVEIR VR 的 MACE 发生率为 0.72%(43/5990),而 Micra VR 为 0.59%(65/10940)(p = .387)。两种 LPM 的手术相关死亡、心脏穿孔、心脏骤停、紧急心包引流或修复手术的发生率相似(p > .05)。与 AVEIR VR 相比,Micra VR 需要更换 LPM 的不可接受阈值更高(95;0.9% vs. 24;0.4%; p = .001)。与 Micra VR 相比,AVEIR VR 在植入过程中(32 例)和植入后(21 例)发生装置脱落的比例更高(53 (0.9%) vs. 46 (0.4%),p 结论:Micra VR 和 AVEIR VR 在植入过程中发生装置脱落的比例更高:Micra VR 和 AVEIR VR 具有相似的手术安全性,包括死亡和穿孔发生率。然而,设备出现的问题却大不相同,这可能与它们的设计不同有关。与 Micra VR 相比,AVEIR VR 似乎在阈值测量能力方面更具优势,但更容易发生装置脱落。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of palpitations in patients with frequent premature ventricular contractions. Body mass index as a determinant of scar formation post-AF ablation: Insights from DECAAF II. Efficacy and limitation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Frequency and Genotype-Dependence of intrinsic chronotropic insufficiency among patients with congenital long QT syndrome. Endocardial ablation of ganglionated plexus for the treatment of carotid sinus syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1