Clinical Research Directory

The Leadless AV Versus DDD Pacing Study

Cardiac pacemaker (PM) implantation is the established treatment for relevant bradyarrhythmias. Conventional PMs require 1-3 pacing leads to register the heart's intrinsic activity ("sensing") and to deliver the electrical stimuli to the heart ("pacing"). These leads are responsible for the vast majority of morbidity after implantation and PM failures. Therefore, a leadless PM system (Micra TPS™, Medtronic, United States) has been introduced a few years ago. This system overcomes the limitations of leads, however, the first generation of the Micra TPS™ only allowed sensing and pacing in the right ventricle. More recently, an upgraded version has been introduced and gained market approval (Micra AV, Medtronic, United States). According to published results from several clinical trials, this device allows sensing the atrial activity and, thus, timing the delivery of the ventricular pacing impulse in a physiological manner similar to a conventional dual-chamber PM with two leads. Clinical feasibility and safety for this concept have been established already. However, it is unclear if this translates into a direct clinical benefit for patients in comparison to conventional PM systems. The aim of this trial is to compare the therapeutic efficacy of the Micra AV™ PM and conventional dual-chamber PM systems in patients with intermittent or permanent atrioventricular conduction block and a PM indication according to the latest European guidelines. Thus, patients will be randomized to either a conventional dual-chamber PM implantation or the implantation of a leadless Micra AV™ system. Patients will be stratified for gender (female/male) and a priori estimated physical exercise capacity ("fit"/"unfit"). The primary outcome will be the physical exercise capacity of the patients. The null hypothesis with regards to the primary endpoint is that the leadless pacemaker arm shows an inferior VO2 anaerobic threshold than the conventional pacemaker arm. Hence the alternative hypothesis postulates that the leadless pacemaker arm shows a non-inferior VO2 anaerobic threshold compared to the conventional pacemaker arm. Rejection of the null hypothesis is needed to conclude non-inferiority.

LEAP 2 Chronic EFS

Prospective, single-arm, non-randomized, unblinded, chronic feasibility study designed to evaluate the safety and performance of the AVEIR™ Conduction System Pacing (CSP) Leadless Pacemaker system.

Studying Routine Patient Care With BIOTRONIK Devices That Allow a More Natural Heart Stimulation

The registry is designed to assess outcome, performance and residual safety aspects of BIOTRONIK products which are used in the context of CSP based on long-term data from an unselected, real-life clinical set-up.

Aveir VR Coverage With Evidence Development Post-Approval Study

The purpose of this coverage with evidence development (CED) study is to evaluate complications and long-term health outcomes of the single-chamber Aveir Single-Chamber Leadless Pacemaker device (Aveir VR LP).

AVEIR DR Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Study

The purpose of this coverage with evidence development (CED) study is to evaluate complications and long-term health outcomes of the dual chamber Aveir Leadless Pacemaker device (aka Aveir™ DR LP system).

Aveir DR Real-World Evidence Post-Approval Study

The purpose of this post-approval study is to evaluate the long-term safety of the dual-chamber Aveir DR leadless pacemaker using real-world evidence methods.

Aveir AR Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Study

The purpose of this coverage with evidence development (CED) study is to evaluate complications and long-term health outcomes of the single-chamber Aveir Atrial Leadless Pacemaker device (aka Aveir™ AR LP system).

Aveir VR Real-World Evidence Post-Approval Study

The purpose of this post-approval study is to evaluate the long-term safety of the single-chamber Aveir VR leadless pacemaker using real-world evidence methods.