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.

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

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

Poorer outcomes associated with more invasive lead management strategies for Abbott Riata® leads: a large, multicenter experience

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

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet‐driven lead

Regional results of the lead evaluation for defibrillation and reliability (LEADR) trial

Prevalence and management of electrical lead abnormalities in cardiac implantable electronic device leads

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Lead Safety: Harnessing Real-World Remote Monitoring Data for Medical Device Evaluation

Contemporary trends of leadless pacemaker implantation in the United States

Complications of Cardiac Perforation and Lead Dislodgement with an MRI-Conditional Pacing Lead: a Korean Multi-Center Experience

Safety of Lead Repair Compared to Lead Revision for Visible Lead Insulation Defects in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Risk Factors and Temporal Trends of Complications Associated With Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Leads.

Comparison of Procedural Outcomes of Lumenless Fixed-Helix Versus Stylet-Driven Extendable-Helix Lead Systems in Left Bundle Branch Pacing: COMPARE LBBP

Trends and outcomes of inpatient cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extractions: a nationwide analysis

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

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

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis

Evaluation of Temporary Atrial Pacing Leads

Retrospective analysis of application of left ventricular active fixation lead in 26 cases

Systematic Review of Leadless Pacemaker