Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37427300›Full record

ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2023

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties.

Nadeev Wijesuriya, Felicity De Vere, Vishal Mehta, Steven Niederer, Christopher A Rinaldi, Jonathan M Behar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nadeev WijesuriyaSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Felicity De VereSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Vishal MehtaSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Steven NiedererSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Christopher A RinaldiSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan M BeharSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/CRTF/22/24362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leadless pacing is a rapidly growing field. Initially designed to provide right ventricular pacing for those who were contraindicated for conventional devices, the technology is growing to explore the potential benefit of avoiding long-term transvenous leads in any patient who requires pacing. In this review, we first examine the safety and performance of leadless pacing devices. We then review the evidence for their use in special populations, such as patients with high risk of device infection, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with vasovagal syncope who represent a younger population who may wish to avoid transvenous pacing. We also summarise the evidence for leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy and conduction system pacing and discuss the challenges of managing issues, such as system revisions, end of battery life and extractions. Finally, we discuss future directions in the field, such as completely leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator devices and whether leadless pacing has the potential to become a first-line therapy in the near future.

Indexed as

cardiac resynchronisation therapyconduction system pacingLeadless pacing

Identifiers

PMID37427300
PMCPMC10326662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.