Abstract
Leadless pacing is now an established alternative to conventional pacing with subcutaneous pocket and transvenous lead for patients with class I or II single-chamber pacing indication. Available 12-month follow-up data shows a 48% fewer major complication rate in patients with Micra™ compared to a historical control group in a nonrandomized study [1]. There is one system with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and two with the Communauté Européenne (CE) mark. The OPS code for the implantation is 8-83d.3 and the procedure has recently been rated as a "new Examination and Treatment Method (NUB)" in the German DRG system, meaning adequate reimbursement is negotiable with health insurance providers. The systems offer similar generator longevity and programming possibilities as conventional pacemaker systems, including rate response, remote monitoring, and MRI safety. The biggest downsides to date are limitations to single-chamber stimulation, lack of long-time data, and concerns of handling of the system at the end of its life span. However, implant procedure complication rates and procedure times do not exceed conventional pacemaker operations, and proper training and patient selection is provided.