SynthesisAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2023
Outcomes of primary leadless pacemaker implantation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 2023. 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, 2 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
- Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: left bundle branch area pacing versus leadless pacing.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the last decade, leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have turned into a prevalent alternative to traditional transvenous (TV) pacemakers; however, there is no consolidated data on LPM implantation in emergencies.
methodsDigital databases were searched for this review and four relevant studies, including 1276 patients were included in this review with procedure duration, fluoroscopic time, major complications, and mortality as primary outcomes and pacing threshold, impedance, sensing of LPM, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes.
resultsGonzales et al. and Marschall et al. showed the duration of the procedure to be 180 ± 45 versus 324.6 ± 92 and 39.9 ± 8.7 versus 54.9 ± 9.8, respectively. Zhang et al. demonstrated the duration of the procedure and fluoroscopy time to be 36 ± 13.4 and 11.1 ± 3.1, respectively. Similarly, Schiavone et al. exhibited intermediate times of implantation at 60 (45-80) versus 50 (40-65) and fluoroscopic times at 6.5 (5-9.7) versus 5.1 (3.1-9). Hospital stay was more with a temp-perm pacemaker as compared to LPM and pacing parameters were not significantly different in all the studies.
conclusionFor underlying arrhythmias, whenever appropriate, our review shows that LPMs may be a better option than temporary pacemakers, even as an urgent treatment.
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.