One-Year Safety and Performance of a Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A dual-chamber leadless pacemaker can provide bradycardia therapy to most patients with pacemaker indications without the complications associated with a lead or pulse generator. We sought to confirm whether previously reported 3-month safety and performance outcomes were sustained through 12 months by determining whether 12-month complication-free and performance success rates exceeded their prespecified performance goals. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in the prospective, single-group Aveir DR i2i Study if they had a standard indication for dual-chamber pacing. Enrolled patients were implanted with an Aveir DR dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system, which comprised 2 communicating leadless pacemakers (1 in the right atrium and 1 in the right ventricle). The primary safety outcome evaluated whether freedom from serious device- or procedure-related events through 365 days exceeded the predetermined performance goal of 76.5%. The primary performance outcome determined whether the composite of atrial capture threshold (≤3.0 V at 0.4 ms) and sensing amplitude (P-wave ≥1.0 mV) at the 12-month visit exceeded the predetermined performance goal of 80.0%. RESULTS: Sites attempted implantation in 300 subjects, where 63.3% had sinus-node dysfunction and 33.3% had atrioventricular block as their primary pacing indication. The primary safety end point was achieved, with a Kaplan-Meier 12-month complication-free rate of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.5–91.8; P <0.001). The primary performance end point was achieved in 92.8% of patients (95% CI, 89.7–95.8; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both primary safety and performance end points were met after 1 year, demonstrating consistency with previously reported 3-month outcomes of a dual-chamber leadless pacemaker. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05252702.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".