Six-month Electrical Performance of the First Dual-chamber Leadless Pacemaker
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: The first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker (DC-LP) system consists of 2 separate atrial and ventricular devices that communicate to maintain synchronous atrioventricular pacing and sensing. The initial safety and efficacy were previously reported.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the chronic electrical performance of the DC-LP system.
Methods: Patients meeting standard dual-chamber pacing indications were enrolled and implanted with the DC-LP system (Aveir DR, Abbott), including right atrial and ventricular helix-fixation LPs (atrial leadless pacemaker [ALP], ventricular leadless pacemaker [VLP]). Pacing capture threshold, sensed amplitude, and pacing impedance were collected using the device programmer at prespecified timepoints from 0-6 months postimplant.
Results: De novo devices were successfully implanted in 381 patients with complete 6-month data (62% male; age 69 ± 14 years; weight 82 ± 20 kg; 65% sinus nodal dysfunction, 30% atrioventricular block). ALPs were implanted predominantly in the right atrial appendage anterior base and VLPs primarily at the mid-to-apical right ventricular septum. From implant to 1 month, pacing capture thresholds (0.4-ms pulse width) improved in both ALPs (2.4 ± 1.5 V to 0.8 ± 0.8 V; P <.001) and VLPs (0.8 ± 0.6 V to 0.6 ± 0.4 V; P <.001). Sensed amplitudes improved in both ALPs (1.8 ± 1.3 mV to 3.4 ± 1.9 mV; P <.001) and VLPs (8.8 ± 4.0 mV to 11.7 ± 4.2 mV; P <.001). Impedances were stable in ALPs (334 ± 68 Ω to 329 ± 52 Ω; P = .17) and reduced in VLPs (789 ± 351 Ω to 646 ± 190 Ω; P <.001). Electrical measurements remained relatively stable from 1-6 months postimplant. No differences in electrical metrics were observed among ALP or VLP implant locations.
Conclusion: This first in-human evaluation of the new dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system demonstrated reliable electrical performance throughout the initial 6-month evaluation period.
Al-Ghamdi B, Salem M, Echahidi M HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2025; 11(2):104-107.
PMID: 40018306 PMC: 11861930. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrcr.2024.10.016.
[Mobitz or Wenckebach, that is the question].
Bogossian H, Robl S, Lemke B, Iliodromitis K Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2025; 36(1):78-81.
PMID: 39964403 DOI: 10.1007/s00399-025-01072-y.
A rate-responsive duty-cycling protocol for leadless pacemaker synchronization.
Ryser A, Reichlin T, Burger J, Niederhauser T, Haeberlin A Biomed Eng Lett. 2024; 14(6):1397-1407.
PMID: 39465113 PMC: 11502617. DOI: 10.1007/s13534-024-00413-z.
How-Peng Liu H, Cortez D Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2024; 24(6):347-350.
PMID: 39241910 PMC: 11662404. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipej.2024.09.001.