A Leadless Intracardiac Transcatheter Pacing System.

BACKGROUND: A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system has been designed to avoid the need for a pacemaker pocket and transvenous lead. METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study without controls, a transcatheter pacemaker was implanted in patients who had guideline-based indications for ventricular pacing. The analysis of the primary end points began when 300 patients reached 6 months of follow-up. The primary safety end point was freedom from system-related or procedure-related major complications. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with low and stable pacing capture thresholds at 6 months (≤2.0 V at a pulse width of 0.24 msec and an increase of ≤1.5 V from the time of implantation). The safety and efficacy end points were evaluated against performance goals (based on historical data) of 83% and 80%, respectively. We also performed a post hoc analysis in which the rates of major complications were compared with those in a control cohort of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers from six previously published studies. RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in 719 of 725 patients (99.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary safety end point was 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.9 to 97.3; P<0.001 for the comparison with the safety performance goal of 83%); there were 28 major complications in 25 of 725 patients, and no dislodgements. The rate of the primary efficacy end point was 98.3% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.5; P<0.001 for the comparison with the efficacy performance goal of 80%) among 292 of 297 patients with paired 6-month data. Although there were 28 major complications in 25 patients, patients with transcatheter pacemakers had significantly fewer major complications than did the control patients (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.75; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this historical comparison study, the transcatheter pacemaker met the prespecified safety and efficacy goals; it had a safety profile similar to that of a transvenous system while providing low and stable pacing thresholds. (Funded by Medtronic; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02004873.).

Early performance of a miniaturized leadless cardiac pacemaker: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study.

AIMS: Permanent cardiac pacing is the only effective treatment for symptomatic bradycardia, but complications associated with conventional transvenous pacing systems are commonly related to the pacing lead and pocket. We describe the early performance of a novel self-contained miniaturized pacemaker. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients having Class I or II indication for VVI pacing underwent implantation of a Micra transcatheter pacing system, from the femoral vein and fixated in the right ventricle using four protractible nitinol tines. Prespecified objectives were >85% freedom from unanticipated serious adverse device events (safety) and <2 V 3-month mean pacing capture threshold at 0.24 ms pulse width (efficacy). Patients were implanted (n = 140) from 23 centres in 11 countries (61% male, age 77.0 ± 10.2 years) for atrioventricular block (66%) or sinus node dysfunction (29%) indications. During mean follow-up of 1.9 ± 1.8 months, the safety endpoint was met with no unanticipated serious adverse device events. Thirty adverse events related to the system or procedure occurred, mostly due to transient dysrhythmias or femoral access complications. One pericardial effusion without tamponade occurred after 18 device deployments. In 60 patients followed to 3 months, mean pacing threshold was 0.51 ± 0.22 V, and no threshold was ≥2 V, meeting the efficacy endpoint (P < 0.001). Average R-wave was 16.1 ± 5.2 mV and impedance was 650.7 ± 130 ohms. CONCLUSION: Early assessment shows the transcatheter pacemaker can safely and effectively be applied. Long-term safety and benefit of the pacemaker will further be evaluated in the trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02004873.

The rationale and design of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study: safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturized pacemaker.

AIMS: Recent advances in miniaturization technologies and battery chemistries have made it possible to develop a pacemaker small enough to implant within the heart while still aiming to provide similar battery longevity to conventional pacemakers. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System is a miniaturized single-chamber pacemaker system that is delivered via catheter through the femoral vein. The pacemaker is implanted directly inside the right ventricle of the heart, eliminating the need for a device pocket and insertion of a pacing lead, thereby potentially avoiding some of the complications associated with traditional pacing systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study is currently undergoing evaluation in a prospective, multi-site, single-arm study. Approximately 720 patients will be implanted at up to 70 centres around the world. The study is designed to have a continuously growing body of evidence and data analyses are planned at various time points. The primary safety and efficacy objectives at 6-month post-implant are to demonstrate that (i) the percentage of Micra patients free from major complications related to the Micra system or implant procedure is significantly higher than 83% and (ii) the percentage of Micra patients with both low and stable thresholds is significantly higher than 80%. The safety performance benchmark is based on a reference dataset of 977 subjects from 6 recent pacemaker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study will assess the safety and efficacy of a miniaturized, totally endocardial pacemaker in patients with an indication for implantation of a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION ID: NCT02004873.

Long-term outcomes in leadless Micra transcatheter pacemakers with elevated thresholds at implantation: Results from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Global Clinical Trial.

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.