ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Leadless Pacemaker Infection Risk in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Case Series and Literature Review.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Late-onset infection of helix-fixation leadless pacemaker diagnosed by pacing threshold elevation and successfully managed with retrieval and reimplantation.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes of concurrent and delayed leadless pacemaker implantation following extraction of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic device.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Review
- Long-term management of leadless pacemakers.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Assessment of adverse events stratified by timing of leadless pacemaker implantation with cardiac implantable electronic devices extraction due to infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been proposed as a reimplantation strategy in pacing-dependent patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction for infection. In this study, we analysed the risk of LP infection when this device is implanted before lead extraction. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent LP implantation between 2017 and 2022. Patients were divided in two groups according to whether LP was implanted following CIED extraction for infection (Group 1) or other indications (Group 2). The primary aim was to describe the risk of LP infection. (3) Results: We included in this study 49 patients with a median age of 81 [20-94] years, mostly males (36, 73%). In Group 1 patients, 17 cases (85%) showed systemic CIED infections, and 11 (55%) had positive lead cultures. Most Group 1 cases (n = 14, 70%) underwent one stage of LP implantation and CIED extraction. Mortality rate during follow-up was 20% (nine patients). Patients were followed up for a median of 927 [41-1925], days and no cases of definite or suspected LP infections were identified. (4) Conclusions: The risk of LP infection was extremely low. LP appears as a potential option for reimplantation in this setting and should be considered in pacing-dependent patients at a high risk of CIED infection recurrence.
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.