MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415467530 · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.042471

Leadless Versus Transvenous Single‐Chamber Ventricular Pacemakers: Real‐World Evidence From Aveir VR Coverage With Evidence Development Study

2025· article· en· W4415467530 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Ip, Peter A. Brady, Anne M. Kroman, Blandine Mondésert, Leonard I. Ganz, Jennifer Joseph, Deepti Bettampadi, Yajing Hu, Yelena Nabutovsky, Rahul N. Doshi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINECoronary artery diseaseIncidence (geometry)Commercialization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Aveir VR, a helix‐fixation leadless pacemaker (LP), was US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved in 2022. The performance of this novel LP has not been evaluated against transvenous single chamber ventricular pacemakers (TV‐VVI) in a real‐world setting. This observational coverage with evidence development study of Aveir VR implants (Aveir coverage with evidence development) evaluates complications and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries implanted with Aveir VR immediately after FDA approval compared with those implanted with TV‐VVI. Methods Medicare fee‐for‐service and Abbott device registration data were used to identify de novo Aveir VR LP (implanted 6/2022–6/2024) or TV‐VVI (all manufacturers, implanted 1/2021–6/2024). Outcomes evaluated included 30‐day and 12‐month complications, reinterventions, and mortality rates, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital encounter characteristics. Results Among 2425 Aveir VR LP and 21 335 TV‐VVI patients included in this analysis, Aveir VR patients had significantly fewer acute device‐related complications (1.4% versus 2.8%, P =0.002). Overall acute complications were similar between Aveir VR (6.5%) and TV‐VVI (6.8%), P =0.69. Cardiac effusion/perforation rates were also similar between Aveir VR (0.4%) and TV‐VVI (0.3%), P =0.45. Aveir VR had a 30% lower overall 12‐month complication rate compared with TV‐VVI (4.1% versus 5.7%, P =0.02), including a 47% lower device‐related complication rate (2.8% versus 5.2%, P =0.0002). There were 61% fewer 12‐month reinterventions with Aveir VR compared with TV‐VVI (1.2% versus 3.2%, P <0.0001). Finally, Aveir maintained a comparable 30‐day mortality but a lower 12‐month mortality rate (17.0% versus 18.2%, P =0.02). Conclusions This real‐world evidence study, conducted immediately after commercialization of Aveir VR, demonstrates that safety of helix‐fixation LPs is better than traditional TV‐VVI pacemakers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→