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.

Preliminary clinical application of leadless pacemaker in patients after removal of infected pacemaker system

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

The Feasibility and Safety of Endomyocardial Biopsy by Lumenless Pacing Lead-Sheath Directed Method During the Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation

Leadless pacemaker implant in patients with pre‐existing infections: Results from the Micra postapproval registry

Safety of leadless pacemaker implantation in super-elderly patients

Cardiac Pacemaker Survey-Twenty Hospitals Pacemaker Implantation Registry in China

Systematic Review of Leadless Pacemaker

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

Implantable cardiac monitor and leadless pacemaker in the management of syncope due to intermittent high-degree atrioventricular block: a case report

Long‑term Outcomes of Non‑systematic Device Reimplantation Following Lead Extraction in Selected Patients

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

[Feasibility and Safety of Bridge Therapy with Active Fixed Electrodes Connected to External Permanent Pacemakers for Patients with Infective Endocarditis after Lead Removal and Before Permanent Pacemaker Implantation].

A Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Performance of the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker in Chinese Patients: A Comparison to the Global Experience

Comparison of efficacy and safety of temporary pacing using active-fixation rersus traditional leads after extraction of infected leads

Extraction of a 6‐year‐old leadless pacemaker (MICRA transcatheter pacing system) using commercially available removal tools: A case report

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Intraoperative Leadless Pacemaker Implantation During Valve Surgery

Bridge Pacemaker with an Externalized Active Fixation Lead for Pacemaker‐dependent Patients with Device Infection

Monocentric experience of leadless pacing with focus on challenging cases for conventional pacemaker

Percutaneous pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction in patients with intracardiac vegetations

Eight year Follow-Up Data on a Leadless Pacing System Real life experience in comparison to data of the prospective trial

Feasibility of implanting shorter-leads pacemaker in Chinese——a single-center clinical trial