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.

The incidence and clinical characteristics of femoral vein thrombus after leadless pacemaker implantation

The incidence and treatment of deep venous thrombosis of upper extremities after implantation of cardiac pacemaker.

Incidence and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Observation of a Chinese Population.

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

Incidence and long-term outcomes of upper limb deep vein thrombosis associated with intracardiac devices: analysis of bleeding, recurrence, and sequelae

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

Safety of leadless pacemaker implantation in super-elderly patients

ANALYSIS OF PREDICTORS OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION AFTER PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION

Incidence and predictors of stroke and silent cerebral embolism following very high-power short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation

Ultrasound-Guided Venous Axillary Access Versus Standard Fluoroscopic Technique for Cardiac Lead Implantation

Systematic Review of Leadless Pacemaker

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

Impact of omitting the intravenous heparin bolus on outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation

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

Thromboembolic Events During the Perioperative Period in Patients Undergoing Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Echocardiography Evaluation of Myocardial Strain and Ventricular Dyssynchrony after Implantation of Leadless Pacemaker Micra AV

Pacemaker lead thrombosis - a rare cause of breathlessness

Perioperative complications after pacemaker implantation: higher complication rates with subclavian vein puncture than with cephalic vein cutdown

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

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Chinese Population

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