ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in the Emergency Bradyarrhythmia Setting: Results from a Multicenter European Registry.
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Pooled it
- Leadless pacemaker in atrioventricular block patients with specific indications: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 14 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Data on leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in an emergency setting are currently lacking. Objective. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of LPM implantation for emergency bradyarrhythmia, in patients referred for urgent PM implantation, in a large, multicenter, real-world cohort of LPM recipients. Methods. Two cohorts of LPM patients, stratified according to the LPM implantation scenario (patients admitted from the emergency department (ED+) vs. elective patients (ED−)) were retrieved from the iLEAPER registry. The primary outcome of the study was a comparison of the peri-procedural complications between the groups. The rates of peri-procedural characteristics (overall procedural and fluoroscopic duration) were deemed secondary outcomes. Results. A total of 1154 patients were enrolled in this project, with patients implanted due to an urgent bradyarrhythmia (ED+) representing 6.2% of the entire cohort. Slow atrial fibrillation and complete + advanced atrioventricular blocks were more frequent in the ED+ cohort (76.3% for ED+ vs. 49.7% for ED−, p = 0.025; 37.5% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). The overall procedural times were longer in the ED+ cohort (60 (45−80) mins vs. 50 (40−65) mins, p < 0.001), showing higher rates of temporary pacing (94.4% for ED+ vs. 28.9% for ED−, p < 0.001). Emergency LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group (6.9% ED+ vs. 4.2% ED−, p = 0.244). Conclusion. LPM implantation is a feasible procedure for the treatment of severe bradyarrhythmia in an urgent setting. Urgent LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group, but it was associated with longer procedural times.
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.