Abstract
Background Regulatory approval of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker (PM) system provides patients an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers.
Objective To quantify patients’ preferences for pacemaker features.
Methods Patients with a de-novo PM indication were recruited from 7 US sites to complete a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. Patients chose between pairs of experimentally designed, hypothetical PMs that varied according to PM type (removable leadless, non-removable leadless, conventional transvenous); battery life (5, 8, 12, 15 years); time since regulatory approval (2, 10 years); discomfort for 6 months (none, discomfort); complication risk and infection risk (1%, 5%, 10%/20% for each). Patients with a de-novo pacemaker indication were recruited to complete a web-based survey from seven US sites between May 11, 2022 to May 24, 2023.
Results Choice data from 117 patients indicated that complication risks and infection risks were the most influential. On average, patients preferred removable leadless pacemakers over both non-removable leadless pacemakers (p=0.001) and conventional transvenous pacemakers (p=0.031). However, latent-class analysis revealed two distinct preference classes. One class preferred leadless pacemakers (50.5%) and the other class preferred conventional transvenous pacemakers (49.5%). The conventional PM class prioritized pacemakers with ten rather than two years since regulatory approval (p<0.001) whereas the leadless PM class was insensitive to years since regulatory approval (p=0.83). All else equal, patients would accept maximum risks of complications or infections ranging about 5% to 18% to receive their preferred pacemaker type.
Conclusion Latent-class analysis revealed strong patient preferences for the type of PM, with a nearly equal split between recent leadless PM technology and conventional transvenous PMs.
These findings can inform shared decision making between healthcare providers and patients.
Competing Interest Statement
SDR, FRJ, SO, and SA report research funding and external relationships at https://scholars.duke.edu/. SA reports receiving research funding for her participation in this study that ended 15 months prior to the end of the study. JCY reports receiving consulting fees from Duke University during the conduct of the study. SD, SG and NH are employees of Abbott Laboratories.
Clinical Trial
The prospective study used a survey and was not an interventional study.
Funding Statement
This study was supported through a research contract agreement between Abbott Laboratories and Duke University.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the Duke Health IRB, Protocol 00109587.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Individuals interested in accessing the study data are asked to contact the corresponding author with a written request, inclusive of a proposed study objective and analytic plan.
