Commercial Implant Experience of a Helix-Fixation Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker
- PMID: 40347055
- DOI: 10.1111/jce.16688
Commercial Implant Experience of a Helix-Fixation Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker
Abstract
Introduction: The AVEIR DR pacemaker (Abbott) is a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker (LP) system that includes right atrial and right ventricular helix-fixation LPs (ALP, VLP), with atrioventricular synchrony maintained via wireless communication between the two devices. The initial, multi-center commercial implant experience of the AVEIR DR dual-chamber LP system has yet to be evaluated.
Methods: Patients indicated for dual-chamber pacing after US commercial release were consecutively included. Implant procedural characteristics were evaluated, and electrical parameters were measured during pre-fixation mapping, post-fixation tether mode, after LP release, and before patient discharge. Any acute procedure- or device-related complications within 30 days were noted.
Results: Patients were implanted with AVEIR DR per standard practice (N = 175 at 8 centers; 72 ± 11 years; 60% male; 62% sinus node dysfunction, 37% AV block; 83% de novo implants). ALPs were implanted predominantly in the base of the right atrial appendage (82%), VLPs in the mid-to-apical right ventricular septum (94%). Pre-fixation mapping allowed repositioning to be avoided in 95% of ALPs and VLPs. The total procedure duration was 64 ± 33 min, from initial incision to final suture, with a cumulative fluoroscopy duration of 13 ± 8 min. In both LPs, capture thresholds and sensed amplitudes improved significantly before patient discharge (ALP 1.2 ± 1.0 V, 2.1 ± 1.1 mV; VLP 0.8 ± 0.6 V, 9.5 ± 3.8 mV). At 30 days post-implant, 99% of patients were complication-free.
Conclusion: The initial commercial experience of the helix-fixation, dual-chamber LP system demonstrated safe and efficient implantation with clinically acceptable electrical metrics and minimal acute complications.
Keywords: AVEIR; dual‐chamber pacemaker; helix fixation; implant procedure; leadless pacemaker; pacemaker complications.
© 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
-
- Y. Sattar, W. Ullah, S. Roomi, et al., “Complications of Leadless vs Conventional (Lead) Artificial Pacemakers—A Retrospective Review,” Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives 10 (2020): 328–333, https://doi.org/10.1080/20009666.2020.1786901.
-
- F. V. Y. Tjong and V. Y. Reddy, “Permanent Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker Therapy: A Comprehensive Review,” Circulation 135 (2017): 1458–1470, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025037.
-
- V. Y. Reddy, D. V. Exner, R. Doshi, et al., “Primary Results on Safety and Efficacy From the Leadless II—Phase 2 Worldwide Clinical Trial,” JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology 8 (2022): 115–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.11.002.
-
- R. E. Knops, V. Y. Reddy, J. E. Ip, et al., “A Dual‐Chamber Leadless Pacemaker,” New England Journal of Medicine 388 (2023): 2360–2370, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2300080.
-
- J. E. Ip, M. Rashtian, D. V. Exner, et al., “Atrioventricular Synchrony Delivered by a Dual‐Chamber Leadless Pacemaker System,” Circulation 150 (2024): 439–450, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069006.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical