Abstract:ImportanceThe safety and efficacy of leadless VVI pacemakers have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but the comparative performance of the device in a large, real-world population has not been examined.ObjectiveTo compare patient characteristics and complications among patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers.Design, Setting, ParticipantsThe Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers (Micra CED) is a continuously enrolling observational cohort study evaluating complications, utilization, and outcomes of leadless VVI pacemakers in the US Medicare fee-for-service population. Patients implanted between March 9, 2017, and December 1, 2018, were identified and included. All Medicare patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers during the study period were enrolled. Patients with less than 12 months of continuous enrollment in Medicare prior to leadless VVI or transvenous VVI implant and with evidence of a prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device were excluded, leaving 5746 patients with leadless VVI pacemakers and 9662 patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers. Data were analyzed from May 2018 to April 2021.ExposuresMedicare patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers or transvenous VVI pacemakers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were acute (30-day) complications and 6-month complications.ResultsOf 15 408 patients, 6701 (43.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 81.0 (8.7) years. Compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers, patients with leadless VVI pacemakers were more likely to have end-stage kidney disease (690 [12.0%] vs 226 [2.3%];P < .001) and a higher mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score (5.1 [3.4] vs 4.6 [3.0];P < .001). The unadjusted acute complication rate was higher in patients with leadless VVI pacemakers relative to transvenous VVI pacemakers (484 of 5746 [8.4%] vs 707 of 9662 [7.3%];P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in overall acute complication rates following adjustment for patient characteristics (7.7% vs 7.4%; risk difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.3;P = .49). Pericardial effusion and/or perforation within 30 days was significantly higher among patients with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers in both unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted, 47 of 5746 [0.8%] vs 38 of 9662 [0.4%];P < .001; adjusted, 0.8% vs 0.4%; risk difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7;P = .004). Patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers had a lower rate of 6-month complications compared with patients implanted with transvenous VVI pacemakers (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03;P = .10; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96;P = .02).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, despite significant differences in patient characteristics, patients in whom a leadless pacemaker was implanted were observed to have higher rates of pericardial effusion and/or perforation but lower rates of other device-related complications and requirements for device revision at 6 months. Understanding the benefits and risks associated with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with transvenous VVI pacemakers can help clinicians and patients make informed treatment decisions.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes Between Leadless vs Transvenous Pacemakers Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker

Real-world evidence of implanting leadless pacemakers after transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures

Transvenous Compared With Leadless Pacemakers: A meta-analysis comparing TP versus LP

Comparison of outcomes and required tools between transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: Insight from single high‐volume center experience

Impact of left bundle branch block or permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve replacement on mid-term left ventricular ejection fraction

Contemporary trends of leadless pacemaker implantation in the United States

Comparing complication rates between Abbott Tendril 2088 and competitive manufacturer leads: Novel real‐world data approach

Midterm Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low to Intermediate Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Intracardiac leadless pacemaker: long term safety over traditional pacemakers. a systematic review and meta-analysis

Incidence of arrhythmias and impact of permanent pacemaker implantation in hospitalizations with transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Tricuspid regurgitation burden following transcatheter aortic valve replacement requiring early pacemaker implantation

Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

National Variability in Pacemaker Implantation Rate Following TAVR

Comparison of Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Requiring Peripheral Vascular Intervention or Alternative Access

Recovery rate from conduction disorders in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Abstract 8803: Bioprosthetic Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Associated with Device Lead Implantation

National Trends and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Initial implantation experience and short-term follow-up results of implanting leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system

5-year outcome comparison among aortic stenosis patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without permanent pacemaker

Long-term outcomes of TAVI patients undergoing different pacing modality: LBBAP versus RVP