The Experts below are selected from a list of 306 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Paul R. Roberts - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Design and evaluation of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System for bradyarrhythmia management.
    Future cardiology, 2018
    Co-Authors: Benedict M. Wiles, Paul R. Roberts
    Abstract:

    Permanent cardiac Pacemakers have traditionally comprised a surgically implanted subcutaneous pulse generator affixed to at least one transvenous pacing lead. Despite technological advances, implant-related complications and transvenous-lead failure rates have remained high. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System is a miniaturized Single Chamber Pacemaker that is implanted directly into the right ventricle, eliminating the subcutaneous pocket and creating a leadless Pacemaker system. Registry data show an extremely high implant success rate, significantly lower major complication rates than transvenous Pacemakers, stable pacing parameters and reliable battery performance. In this review we summarize the available clinical literature and highlight the promising efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System.

Jose Ramon Gonzalezjuanatey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the micra leadless transcatheter Pacemaker implantation and mid term follow up results in a Single center
    Revista Espanola De Cardiologia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jose Luis Martinezsande, Moises Rodriguezmanero, Javier Garciaseara, Laila Gonzalezmelchor, Xesus Alberte Fernandezlopez, Alfredo Redondodieguez, Rocio Gonzalezferreiro, Jose Ramon Gonzalezjuanatey
    Abstract:

    Abstract Introduction and objectives Currently, studies on the leadless Pacemaker (Micra) have mostly been limited to clinical trials with less than 6 months’ follow-up and they often fail to reflect real population outcomes. We sought to evaluate electrical parameters at implantation and chronologically during follow-up, as well as the safety of this new technique. Methods This prospective, observational study included 30 consecutive patients, all ≥ 65 years, with an indication for Single-Chamber Pacemaker implantation. Results Successful implantation was accomplished in all patients referred for leadless implantation. The mean age was 79.4 ± 6.4 years (range, 66-89 years); 20 (66.6%) were men and 28 had permanent atrial fibrillation (93.3%); 1 had atrial tachycardia and 1 had sinus rhythm. Concomitant atrioventricular node ablation was performed immediately after implantation in 5 patients (16.6%), and implantation was performed after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 2. The procedure was performed under an uninterrupted anticoagulation regimen (maximum INR 2.4) in 23 patients (76.6%). With the exception of 1 moderate pericardial effusion without tamponade, there were no severe complications. The mean follow-up was 5.3 ± 3.3 months and 4 patients had more than 1 year of follow-up. Sensing and pacing parameters were stable both at implantation and during the short- to mid-term follow-up. Conclusions Implantation of leadless Pacemakers is feasible, safe and provides advantages over the conventional system. Further studies with longer follow-up periods will be needed before these devices become widely used in routine clinical practice.

I.n. Daminov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Vivek Y Reddy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • leadless Pacemaker versus transvenous Single Chamber Pacemaker therapy a propensity score matched analysis
    Heart Rhythm, 2018
    Co-Authors: Fleur V Y Tjong, Reinoud E Knops, Tom F Brouwer, Srinivas R Dukkipati, Jacob S Koruth, Jan Petru, Lucie Sediva, Norbert M Van Hemel, Petr Neuzil, Vivek Y Reddy
    Abstract:

    Background The recent introduction of leadless Pacemakers (PMs) was aimed to eliminate transvenous lead- and pocket-related complications. While the initial results with the leadless PMs seem promising, the nonrandomized nature, limited implant experience of operators, and short follow-up period of these studies preclude a simple comparison to transvenous PMs. Objectives The objective of this study was to provide a balanced comparison of leadless and transvenous Single-Chamber PM therapies through a propensity score-matched analysis. Methods Leadless patients from 3 experienced leadless implant centers were propensity score-matched to VVI-R patients from a contemporary prospective multicenter transvenous PM registry. The primary outcome was device-related complications that required invasive intervention during mid-term follow-up. Separate analyses including and excluding PM advisory–related complications were performed. Results A total of 635 patients were match-eligible (leadless: n = 254; transvenous: n=381), of whom 440 patients (median age 78 years; interquartile range 70–84 years; 61% men) were successfully matched (leadless: n=220 vs transvenous: n=220). The complication rate at 800 days of follow-up was 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0%–2.2%) in the leadless group vs 4.7% (95% CI 1.8%–7.6%) in the transvenous group when excluding PM advisory–related complications (P = .02). When including these PM advisory–related complications, the complication rate at 800 days increased to 10.9% (95% CI 4.8%–16.5%) in the leadless group vs 4.7% (95% CI 1.8%–7.6%) in the transvenous group (P = .063). Conclusion This study reveals favorable complication rates for leadless compared to transvenous Single-Chamber pacing therapy at mid-term follow-up in a propensity score-matched cohort. When including PM advisory–related complications, this advantage is no longer observed.

Benedict M. Wiles - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Design and evaluation of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System for bradyarrhythmia management.
    Future cardiology, 2018
    Co-Authors: Benedict M. Wiles, Paul R. Roberts
    Abstract:

    Permanent cardiac Pacemakers have traditionally comprised a surgically implanted subcutaneous pulse generator affixed to at least one transvenous pacing lead. Despite technological advances, implant-related complications and transvenous-lead failure rates have remained high. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System is a miniaturized Single Chamber Pacemaker that is implanted directly into the right ventricle, eliminating the subcutaneous pocket and creating a leadless Pacemaker system. Registry data show an extremely high implant success rate, significantly lower major complication rates than transvenous Pacemakers, stable pacing parameters and reliable battery performance. In this review we summarize the available clinical literature and highlight the promising efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System.