Six-month electrical performance of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".