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. OBJECTIVE To compare patient characteristics and complications among patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS The 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. EXPOSURES Medicare 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...

The authors found that patients receiving an implantable IDD system may experience reduced cumulative future medical costs relative to anticipated costs in the absence of receiving IDD. This finding complements published literature on the cost-effectiveness of IDD.

No abstract

Background: There is heightened interest in how real-world data (RWD) can be used to supplement or replace traditional mechanisms for collecting clinical information. A critical component in evaluating utility of RWD is assessing the validity and reliability of event measurement. Only two studies have validated Medicare claims with physician-adjudicated data collected in a clinical study and none in the pacemaker patient population. This study compares events identified in physician-adjudicated clinical registry data collected in the Micra Post-Approval Registry (PAR) with events identified via Medicare administrative claims in the Micra Coverage with Evidence (CED) Study. Methods: Patients who were dually enrolled in the Micra CED and the Micra PAR between March 9, 2017 and December 1, 2017 were included in the validation analysis. All patients intended to be implanted with a Micra device were eligible for participation in the Micra PAR. All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries implanted with a Micra device who met the 12-month continuous enrollment criteria were included in the Micra CED. We compared the count of acute (30-day) complications identified in the Medicare claims and the physicianadjudicated PAR data to assess agreement between data sources. Results: There were 230 patients dually enrolled in the Micra CED and Micra PAR studies during the study period. Overall, there were 17 acute events reported in either the Micra CED or the Micra PAR, with 95% agreement in the identification of events and absence of events between studies. Study disagreement between events reported in either study varied: arteriovenous fistula (50%), pulmonary embolism (67%), hemorrhage/hematoma (75%), and deep vein thrombosis (100%). Among physician-adjudicated events, there was no disagreement between the Micra CED and Micra PAR studies in any event type. Conclusion: Findings from this study demonstrate high agreement in event identification between Medicare claims data and registries for patients implanted with Micra leadless pacemakers.

No abstract