• Something wrong with this record ?

To retrieve, or not to retrieve: System revisions with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker

E. Grubman, P. Ritter, CR. Ellis, M. Giocondo, R. Augostini, P. Neuzil, B. Ravindran, AM. Patel, P. Omdahl, K. Pieper, K. Stromberg, JH. Hudnall, D. Reynolds, . ,

. 2017 ; 14 (12) : 1801-1806. [pub] 20170714

Language English Country United States

Document type Clinical Trial, Journal Article, Multicenter Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18033828

BACKGROUND: Early experience with leadless pacemakers has shown a low rate of complications. However, little is known about system revision in patients with these devices. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the system revision experience with the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS). METHODS: Patients with implants from the Pre-market Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study and the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study (N = 989) were analyzed and compared with 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). Revisions included TPS retrieval/explant, repositioning, replacement, or electrical deactivation (with or without prior attempt at retrieval, generally followed by TVP implant) for any reason. Kaplan-Meier revision rates were calculated to account for varying follow-up duration and were compared using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: The actuarial rate for revision at 24 months postimplant was 1.4% for the TPS group (11 revisions in 10 patients), 75% (95% confidence interval 53%-87%; P < .001) lower than the 5.3% for the TVP group (123 revisions in 117 patients). TPS revisions occurred 5-430 days postimplant for elevated pacing thresholds, need for alternate therapy, pacemaker syndrome, and prosthetic valve endocarditis; none were due to device dislodgment or device-related infection. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 7 cases, 3 were retrieved percutaneously (range 9-406 days postimplant), and 1 was surgically removed during aortic valve surgery. CONCLUSION: The overall system revision rate for patients with TPS at 24 months was 1.4%, 75% lower than that for patients with TVPs. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 64% of revisions, and percutaneous retrieval was successful as late as 14 months postimplant.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18033828
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20181024182231.0
007      
ta
008      
181008s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.07.015 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28713024
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Grubman, Eric $u Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: eric.grubman@yale.edu.
245    10
$a To retrieve, or not to retrieve: System revisions with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker / $c E. Grubman, P. Ritter, CR. Ellis, M. Giocondo, R. Augostini, P. Neuzil, B. Ravindran, AM. Patel, P. Omdahl, K. Pieper, K. Stromberg, JH. Hudnall, D. Reynolds, . ,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Early experience with leadless pacemakers has shown a low rate of complications. However, little is known about system revision in patients with these devices. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the system revision experience with the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS). METHODS: Patients with implants from the Pre-market Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study and the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System Continued Access Study (N = 989) were analyzed and compared with 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). Revisions included TPS retrieval/explant, repositioning, replacement, or electrical deactivation (with or without prior attempt at retrieval, generally followed by TVP implant) for any reason. Kaplan-Meier revision rates were calculated to account for varying follow-up duration and were compared using a Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: The actuarial rate for revision at 24 months postimplant was 1.4% for the TPS group (11 revisions in 10 patients), 75% (95% confidence interval 53%-87%; P < .001) lower than the 5.3% for the TVP group (123 revisions in 117 patients). TPS revisions occurred 5-430 days postimplant for elevated pacing thresholds, need for alternate therapy, pacemaker syndrome, and prosthetic valve endocarditis; none were due to device dislodgment or device-related infection. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 7 cases, 3 were retrieved percutaneously (range 9-406 days postimplant), and 1 was surgically removed during aortic valve surgery. CONCLUSION: The overall system revision rate for patients with TPS at 24 months was 1.4%, 75% lower than that for patients with TVPs. TPS was disabled and left in situ in 64% of revisions, and percutaneous retrieval was successful as late as 14 months postimplant.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a srdeční arytmie $x mortalita $x terapie $7 D001145
650    12
$a srdeční katétry $7 D062906
650    12
$a rozhodování $7 D003657
650    _2
$a odstranění implantátu $x přístrojové vybavení $7 D020878
650    _2
$a design vybavení $7 D004867
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a miniaturizace $7 D008904
650    _2
$a kardiostimulátor $x škodlivé účinky $7 D010138
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a míra přežití $x trendy $7 D015996
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a Spojené státy americké $x epidemiologie $7 D014481
655    _2
$a klinické zkoušky $7 D016430
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
700    1_
$a Ritter, Philippe $u Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, Université Bordeaux, IHU LIRYC, Bordeaux, France.
700    1_
$a Ellis, Christopher R $u Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
700    1_
$a Giocondo, Michael $u St. Luke's Mid-American Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
700    1_
$a Augostini, Ralph $u The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
700    1_
$a Neuzil, Petr $u Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ravindran, Bipin $u Michigan Heart, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
700    1_
$a Patel, Anshul M $u Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia.
700    1_
$a Omdahl, Pamela $u Medtronic, plc, Mounds View, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Pieper, Karen $u Medtronic, plc, Mounds View, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Stromberg, Kurt $u Medtronic, plc, Mounds View, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Hudnall, J Harrison $u Medtronic, plc, Mounds View, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Reynolds, Dwight $u Cardiovascular Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, OU Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
700    1_
$a ,
773    0_
$w MED00156180 $t Heart rhythm $x 1556-3871 $g Roč. 14, č. 12 (2017), s. 1801-1806
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28713024 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20181008 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20181024182739 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1339610 $s 1030822
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 14 $c 12 $d 1801-1806 $e 20170714 $i 1556-3871 $m Heart rhythm $n Heart Rhythm $x MED00156180
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20181008

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options