Ambulatory atrioventricular synchronous pacing over time using a leadless ventricular pacemaker: Primary results from the AccelAV study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated that accelerometer-based, mechanically timed atrioventricular synchrony (AVS) is feasible using a leadless ventricular pacemaker. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of a leadless ventricular pacemaker with accelerometer-based algorithms that provide AVS pacing. METHODS: AccelAV was a prospective, single-arm study to characterize AVS in patients implanted with a Micra AV, which uses the device accelerometer to mechanically detect atrial contractions and promote VDD pacing. The primary objective was to characterize resting AVS at 1 month in patients with complete atrioventricular block (AVB) and normal sinus function. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients (age 77 ± 11 years; 48% female) from 20 centers were enrolled and implanted with a leadless pacemaker. Among patients with normal sinus function and complete AVB (n = 54), mean resting AVS was 85.4% at 1 month, and ambulatory AVS was 74.8%. In the subset of patients (n = 20) with programming optimization, mean ambulatory AVS was 82.6%, representing a 10.5% improvement (P <.001). Quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol Five-Dimensions Three-Level questionnaire) improved significantly from preimplant to 3 months (P = .031). In 37 patients with AVB at both 1 and 3 months, mean AVS during rest did not differ (86.1% vs 84.1%; P = .43). There were no upgrades to dual-chamber devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy through 3 months. CONCLUSION: Accelerometer-based mechanical atrial sensing provided by a leadless pacemaker implanted in the right ventricle significantly improves quality of life in a select cohort of patients with AV block and normal sinus function. AVS remained stable through 3 months, and there were no system upgrades to dual-chamber pacemakers.

Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).

Behavior of AV synchrony pacing mode in a leadless pacemaker during variable AV conduction and arrhythmias.

INTRODUCTION: MARVEL 2 assessed the efficacy of mechanical atrial sensing by a ventricular leadless pacemaker, enabling a VDD pacing mode. The behavior of the enhanced MARVEL 2 algorithm during variable atrio-ventricular conduction (AVC) and/or arrhythmias has not been characterized and is the focus of this study. METHODS: Of the 75 patients enrolled in the MARVEL 2 study, 73 had a rhythm assessment and were included in the analysis. The enhanced MARVEL 2 algorithm included a mode-switching algorithm that automatically switches between VDD and ventricular only antibradycardia pacing (VVI)-40 depending upon AVC status. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (58%) had persistent third degree AV block (AVB), 18 (25%) had 1:1 AVC, 5 (7%) had variable AVC status, and 8 (11%) had atrial arrhythmias. Among the 42 patients with persistent third degree AVB, the median ventricular pacing (VP) percentage was 99.9% compared to 0.2% among those with 1:1 AVC. As AVC status changed, the algorithm switched to VDD when the ventricular rate dropped less than 40 bpm. During atrial fibrillation (AF) with ventricular response greater than 40 bpm, VVI-40 mode was maintained. No pauses longer than 1500 ms were observed. Frequent ventricular premature beats reduced the percentage of AV synchrony. During AF, the atrial signal was of low amplitude and there was infrequent sensing. CONCLUSION: The mode switching algorithm reduced VP in patients with 1:1 AVC and appropriately switched to VDD during AV block. No pacing safety issues were observed during arrhythmias.

Leadless pacemaker implant with concomitant atrioventricular node ablation: Experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA. METHODS: Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post-Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow-up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co-morbid conditions compared with non-AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow-up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non-AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p < .001). The risk of major complications through 36-months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33-6.23, p < .001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions. CONCLUSION: Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA.

Predictors of atrial mechanical sensing and atrioventricular synchrony with a leadless ventricular pacemaker: Results from the MARVEL 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: The MARVEL (Micra Atrial TRacking Using a Ventricular AccELerometer) 2 study assessed the efficacy of atrioventricular (AV) synchronous pacing with a Micra leadless pacemaker. Average atrioventricular synchrony (AVS) was 89.2%. Previously, low amplitude of the Micra-sensed atrial signal (A4) was observed to be a factor of low AVS. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of A4 amplitude and high AVS. METHODS: We analyzed 64 patients enrolled in MARVEL 2 who had visible P waves on electrocardiogram for assessing A4 amplitude and 40 patients with third-degree AV block for assessing AVS at rest. High AVS was defined as >90% correct atrial-triggered ventricular pacing. The association between clinical factors and echocardiographic parameters with A4 amplitude was investigated using a multivariable model with lasso variable selection. Variables associated with A4 amplitude together with premature ventricular contraction burden, sinus rate, and sinus rate variability (standard deviation of successive differences of P-P intervals [SDSD]) were assessed for association with AVS. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, low A4 amplitude was inversely related to atrial function assessed by E/A ratio and e'/a' ratio, and was directly related to atrial contraction excursion (ACE) and atrial strain (Ɛa) on echocardiography (all P ≤.05). The multivariable lasso regression model found coronary artery bypass graft history, E/A ratio, ACE, and Ɛa were associated with low A4 amplitude. E/A ratio and SDSD were multivariable predictors of high AVS, with >90% probability if E/A <0.94 and SDSD <5 bpm. CONCLUSION: Clinical parameters and echocardiographic markers of atrial function are associated with A4 signal amplitude. High AVS can be predicted by E/A ratio <0.94 and low sinus rate variability at rest.

Atrioventricular Synchronous Pacing Using a Leadless Ventricular Pacemaker: Results From the MARVEL 2 Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports on the performance of a leadless ventricular pacemaker with automated, enhanced accelerometer-based algorithms that provide atrioventricular (AV) synchronous pacing. BACKGROUND: Despite many advantages, leadless pacemakers are currently only capable of single-chamber ventricular pacing. METHODS: The prospective MARVEL 2 (Micra Atrial tRacking using a Ventricular accELerometer 2) study assessed the performance of an automated, enhanced accelerometer-based algorithm downloaded to the Micra leadless pacemaker for up to 5 h in patients with AV block. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate the superiority of the algorithm to provide AV synchronous (VDD) pacing versus VVI-50 pacing in patients with sinus rhythm and complete AV block. The primary safety objective was to demonstrate that the algorithm did not result in pauses or heart rates of >100 beats/min. RESULTS: Overall, 75 patients from 12 centers were enrolled; an accelerometer-based algorithm was downloaded to their leadless pacemakers. Among the 40 patients with sinus rhythm and complete AV block included in the primary efficacy objective analysis, the proportion of patients with ≥70% AV synchrony at rest was significantly greater with VDD pacing than with VVI pacing (95% vs. 0%; p < 0.001). The mean percentage of AV synchrony increased from 26.8% (median: 26.9%) during VVI pacing to 89.2% (median: 94.3%) during VDD pacing. There were no pauses or episodes of oversensing-induced tachycardia reported during VDD pacing in all 75 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer-based atrial sensing with an automated, enhanced algorithm significantly improved AV synchrony in patients with sinus rhythm and AV block who were implanted with a leadless ventricular pacemaker. (Micra Atrial Tracking Using a Ventricular Accelerometer 2 [MARVEL 2]; NCT03752151).

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Hemodialysis Patients: Experience With the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report periprocedural outcomes and intermediate-term follow-up of hemodialysis patients undergoing Micra implantation. BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers may be preferred in patients with limited vascular access and high-infection risk, such as patients on hemodialysis. METHODS: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt (n = 201 of 2,819; 7%) from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study investigational device exemption trial, Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol, and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural outcomes, and intermediate-term follow-up were summarized. RESULTS: Patients on hemodialysis at the time of Micra implantation attempt were on average 70.5 ± 13.5 years of age and 59.2% were male. The dialysis patients commonly had hypertension (80%), diabetes (61%), coronary artery disease (39%), and congestive heart failure (27%), and 72% had a condition that the implanting physician felt precluded the use of a transvenous pacemaker. Micra was successfully implanted in 197 patients (98.0%). Reasons for unsuccessful implantation included inadequate thresholds (n = 2) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). The median implantation time was 27 min (interquartile range: 20 to 39 min). There were 3 procedure-related deaths: 1 due to metabolic acidosis following a prolonged procedure duration in a patient undergoing concomitant atrioventricular nodal ablation and 2 deaths occurred in patients who needed surgical repair after perforation. Average follow-up was 6.2 months (range 0 to 26.7 months). No patients had a device-related infection or required device removal because of bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: Leadless pacemakers represent an effective pacing option in this challenging patient population on chronic hemodialysis. The risk of infection appears low with an acceptable safety profile. (Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study; NCT02004873; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study Protocol; NCT02488681; Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Post-Approval Registry; NCT02536118).

Accelerometer-based atrioventricular synchronous pacing with a ventricular leadless pacemaker: Results from the Micra atrioventricular feasibility studies.

BACKGROUND: Micra is a leadless pacemaker that is implanted in the right ventricle and provides rate response via a 3-axis accelerometer (ACC). Custom software was developed to detect atrial contraction using the ACC enabling atrioventricular (AV) synchronous pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to sense atrial contractions from the Micra ACC signal and provide AV synchronous pacing. METHODS: The Micra Accelerometer Sensor Sub-Study (MASS) and MASS2 early feasibility studies showed intracardiac accelerations related to atrial contraction can be measured via ACC in the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra Atrial TRacking Using A Ventricular AccELerometer (MARVEL) study was a prospective multicenter study designed to characterize the closed-loop performance of an AV synchronous algorithm downloaded into previously implanted Micra devices. Atrioventricular synchrony (AVS) was measured during 30 minutes of rest and during VVI pacing. AVS was defined as a P wave visible on surface ECG followed by a ventricular event <300 ms. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients completed the MARVEL study procedure at 12 centers in 9 countries. Patients were implanted with a Micra for a median of 6.0 months (range 0-41.4). High-degree AV block was present in 33 patients, whereas 31 had predominantly intrinsic conduction during the study. Average AVS during AV algorithm pacing was 87.0% (95% confidence interval 81.8%-90.9%), 80.0% in high-degree block patients and 94.4% in patients with intrinsic conduction. AVS was significantly greater (P <.001) during AV algorithm pacing compared to VVI in high-degree block patients, whereas AVS was maintained in patients with intrinsic conduction. CONCLUSION: Accelerometer-based atrial sensing is feasible and significantly improves AVS in patients with AV block and a single-chamber leadless pacemaker implanted in the right ventricle.

Impact of operator experience and training strategy on procedural outcomes with leadless pacing: Insights from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemaker systems have been designed to avoid the need for a pocket and transvenous lead. However, delivery of this therapy requires a new catheter-based procedure. This study evaluates the role of operator experience and different training strategies on procedural outcomes. METHODS: A total of 726 patients underwent implant attempt with the Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) by 94 operators trained in a teaching laboratory using a simulator, cadaver, and large animal models (lab training) or locally at the hospital with simulator/demo model and proctorship (hospital training). Procedure success, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and safety outcomes were compared between training methods and experience (implant case number). RESULTS: The Micra TPS procedure was successful in 99.2% of attempts and did not differ between the 55 operators trained in the lab setting and the 39 operators trained locally at the hospital (P = 0.189). Implant case number was also not a determinant of procedural success (P = 0.456). Each operator performed between one and 55 procedures. Procedure time and fluoroscopy duration decreased by 2.0% (P = 0.002) and 3.2% (P < 0.001) compared to the previous case. Major complication rate and pericardial effusion rate were not associated with case number (P = 0.755 and P = 0.620, respectively). There were no differences in the safety outcomes by training method. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large group of operators, implantation success was high regardless of experience. While procedure duration and fluoroscopy times decreased with implant number, complications were low and not associated with case number. Procedure and safety outcomes were similar between distinct training methodologies.

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.).