SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2023
Comparative assessment of safety with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Leadless Atrial Pacing at Bachmann's Bundle Guided by Electroanatomic Mapping and Intracardiac Ultrasound.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Retrieval of a dislodged helix-fixation leadless pacemaker using the double-snare technique: A case report.Journal of cardiology cases · 2026Article
- Era of Synchronized Physiologic Leadless Pacing: A Novel Approach to Cardiac Pacing and Ongoing Development.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Leadless Devices: the Future of Pacing.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- 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 pacing: a comprehensive review.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Pacemakers in Modern Cardiology and Their Transition From Traditional to Leadless Models.Cureus · 2025Review
- Procedural Complications and Inpatient Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantations in Rural Versus Urban Hospitals in the United States.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Comparative safety of transvenous and leadless pacemakers in patients with cardiovascular diseases: A meta-analysis study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Leadless Pacemaker vs. Transvenous Pacemaker in End Stage Kidney Disease: Insights from the Nationwide Readmission Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences for Features Associated With Leadless Versus Conventional Transvenous Cardiac Pacemakers.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Article
- Impact of body mass index on in-hospital outcomes in patients receiving leadless pacemakers: A five-category analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Navigating Complications in Cardiac Pacemakers: A Comprehensive Review and Management Strategies.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeadless pacemakers (LP) and transvenous pacemakers (TVP) are two stable pacing platforms currently available in clinical practice. Observational data show mixed results with regards to their comparative safety. This meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the comparative safety of LP over TVP.
methodsThe study protocol was registered in PROSPERO registry (CRD42022325376). Six databases were searched for published literature from inception to April 12, 2022. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference were used to estimate the outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsA total of 879 studies were imported from the databases. Among these, 41 papers were screened for full text and 17 meet the inclusion criteria. Among them, pooled results showed 42% lower odds of occurrence of complications in the LP group (OR 0.58, CI 0.42-0.80) compared to TVP group. Notably, 70% lower odds of device dislodgment (OR 0.30, CI 0.21-0.43), 46% lower odds of re-intervention (OR 0.54, CI 0.45-0.64), 87% lower odds of pneumothorax (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.57), albeit, 2.65 times higher odds of pericardial effusion (OR 2.65, CI 1.49-4.70) were observed in the LP group.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis showed LP to be a significantly safer modality compared to TVP, in terms of re-intervention, device dislodgment, pneumothoraxes, and overall complications. However, there were higher rates of pericardial effusion in the LP group. There was a diverse number of patients included, and all studies were observational. Randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.
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.