ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and complications of leadless pacemaker and traditional transvenous pacemaker implantation.
Article in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 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
- High Output Heart Failure Following Leadless Pacemaker Implantation.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Revolutionization of the Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: Hemodynamic Verification Slashes Vascular Complications.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying independent risk factors of mortality among patients receiving a leadless pacemaker: A longitudinal retrospective study in a single center.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Leadless Versus Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemakers: Real-World Evidence From Aveir VR Coverage With Evidence Development Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- Long-term follow up of single-chamber atrial pacing-system upgrade and Wenckebach block point behavior: potential implications for leadless AAI pacing?Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
- 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 following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a dual-centre propensity score-matched observational 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 · 2025Article
- Takotsubo Syndrome in the Setting of Pacemaker Implantation: Results From a Multicenter National Prospective Registry.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Preoperative Colchicine and Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A US Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Leadless pacemaker implantation in real-world clinical practice: An Italian survey promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Leadless Pacemakers: The "Leading Edge" of Quality of Life in Cardic Electrophysiology.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Long-Term Complications Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer-Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsSince their introduction in 1958, traditional cardiac pacemakers have undergone considerable upgrades over the years, but they continue to have a complication rate of ∼3.8%-12.4%. There are no randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of leadless pacemakers (LPM) with single-chamber transvenous pacemakers (TV-VVI). The aim is to assess the differences in the procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes between LPM and TV-VVI implants. METHODS AND
resultsWe queried the national inpatient database from 2016 to 2019 to include adult patients undergoing LPM and TV-VVI. Admissions for leadless and single-lead transvenous pacemakers were identified by their appropriate ICD-10 codes. Complications were identified using ICD-10 codes that mostly represent initial encounter. The difference in outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 propensity score matching between the two cohorts. Thirty-five thousand four hundred thirty expanded samples of admissions were retrieved of which 27 650 (78%) underwent TV-VVI with a mean age 81.3 ± 9.4 years and 7780 (22%) underwent LPM with a mean age of 77.1 ± 12.1 years. The LPM group had a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.63, 95% CI (1.29-2.05), P < 0.001], vascular complications [aOR: 7.54, 95% CI (3.21-17.68), P < 0.001], venous thromboembolism [aOR: 3.67, 95% CI (2.68-5.02), P < 0.001], cardiac complications [aOR: 1.79, 95% CI (1.59-2.03), P < 0.001], device thrombus formation [aOR: 5.03, 95% CI (2.55-9.92), P < 0.001], and need for a blood transfusion [aOR: 1.54, 95% CI (1.14-2.07), P < 0.005]. The TV-VVI group had higher likelihood of in-hospital pulmonary complications [aOR:0.68, 95% CI (0.54-0.87), P < 0.002] and had a need for device revisions [aOR:0.42, 95% CI (0.23-0.76), P < 0.004].
conclusionThere is a higher likelihood of all-cause in-hospital mortality and complications following LPM implantation in comparison to TV-VVI. This could be related to higher co-morbidities in the LPM group. Clinical trials aimed to accurately compare these two groups should be undertaken.
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.