ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Leadless or Conventional Transvenous Ventricular Permanent Pacemakers: A Nationwide Matched Control Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Acute Mortality and Complication Rates Following Leadless Pacemaker Placement Using National-Level Data.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes between Leadless and Conventional Transvenous Pacemakers Implantation: An Up-to-Date Meta-analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Leadless Pacemakers: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Current cardiology reports · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing: a propensity-weighted real-world study in France.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Comparison of readmission outcomes and complications between leadless and traditional transvenous pacemakers in older adults: a nationwide readmission analysis of 49852 admission events.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Leadless vs. Transvenous Pacemakers in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- First European experience with a leadless atrial pacemaker.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Pacemakers in Modern Cardiology and Their Transition From Traditional to Leadless Models.Cureus · 2025Review
- Leadless Pacemakers: The "Leading Edge" of Quality of Life in Cardic Electrophysiology.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Comparative safety of transvenous and leadless pacemakers in patients with cardiovascular diseases: A meta-analysis study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Dual-chamber vs. single-chamber pacemaker in patients in sinus rhythm with an atrioventricular block: a nationwide cohort study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Observational
- Implantable cardiac monitor and leadless pacemaker in the management of syncope due to intermittent high-degree atrioventricular block: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of Safety of Leadless Pacemakers and Transvenous Pacemakers: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2023Review
- Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and complications of leadless pacemaker and traditional transvenous pacemaker implantation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Leadless ventricular permanent pacemakers (leadless VVI or LPM) were designed to reduce lead-related complications of conventional VVI pacemakers (CPM). The aim of our study was to assess and compare real-life clinical outcomes within the first 30 days and during a midterm follow-up with the 2 techniques. Methods and Results This French longitudinal cohort study was based on the national hospitalization database. All adults (age ≥18 years) hospitalized in French hospitals from January 1, 2017 to September 1, 2020, who underwent a first LPM or CPM were included. The study included 40 828 patients with CPM and 1487 with LPM. After propensity score matching 1344 patients with CPM were matched 1:1 with patients treated with LPM. Patients with LPM had a lower rate of all-cause and cardiovascular death within the 30 days after implantation. During subsequent follow-up (mean: 8.6±10.5 months), risk of all-cause death in the unmatched population was significantly higher in the LPM group than in the CPM group, whereas risk of cardiovascular death and of endocarditis was not significantly different. After matching on all baseline characteristics including comorbidities (mean follow-up 6.2±8.7 months), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and infective endocarditis were not statistically different in the 2 groups. Conclusions Patients treated with leadless VVI pacemakers had better clinical outcomes in the first month compared with the patients treated with conventional VVI pacing. During a midterm follow-up, risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and endocarditis in patients treated with leadless VVI pacemaker was not statistically different after propensity score matching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.