Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):2938. doi: 10.3390/jcm12082938

Table 5.

Pivotal Trials of Leadless Pacing Devices.

Trial Year Device N Mean Age % Female Follow-up Primary Outcome Implant Success Rate, n/N (%) Complication Rate Other
LEADLESS [121] 2014 NanoStim 33 76.5 ± 8.4 33 3 m 31/33 (94%) * 32/33 (97%) 3% (1 perforation requiring surgery; died of stroke) 5 patients require > 1 LP during procedure
LEADLESS II [122] 2015 NanoStim 526 75.8 ± 12.1 38.2 6 m 270/300 (90.0%) 504/526 (95.8%) 6.7% (22 events in 20 patients) 1.7% dislodgements
1.3% tamponade
1.3% elevated thresholds
Micra IDE [123] 2016 Micra 725 75.9 ± 10.9 41.2 6 m 292/297 (98.3%) 719/725 (99.2%) 4.0% (28 events in 25 patients) 1.6% perforation/effusion
LEADLESS II-Phase 2 [124] 2022 Aveir 200 75.6 ± 11.3 37.5 6 w 188/196 (95.9%) 196/200 (98%) 4.0% (9 events in 8 patients) 1.5% tamponade

* Freedom from complications at 90 days; Composite of acceptable pacing threshold (≤2 V at 0.4 ms) and acceptable sensing amplitude (R wave ≥5 mV) through 6 months; Percentage of patients with low and stable pacing capture thresholds (≤2 V at 0.24 ms and an increase of ≤1.5 V from time of implant) at 6 months; Composite of acceptable pacing thresholds (≤2 V at 0.4 ms) and R wave amplitudes (≥5 mV or an equal or greater value at implantation) through 6 weeks.