SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes between Leadless and Conventional Transvenous Pacemakers Implantation: An Up-to-Date Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leadless pacemaker in atrioventricular block patients with specific indications: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Safety and efficacy of completely transthoracic echocardiography guided leadless pacemaker implantation assisted by Panna guide wire: initial clinical experience.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) are emerging as viable alternatives to conventional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). This study aimed to systematically compare the postoperative outcomes of LCPs and TVPs based on available published studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature comparing outcomes from LCP and TVP implantations. Data analysis was performed using Stata/MP 17.0. The evaluated endpoints included pericardial effusion or perforation, puncture site events, infective endocarditis, lead or device dislodgement, pocket-related complications, tricuspid regurgitation or dysfunction, any infection, increased right ventricle (RV) pacing threshold, embolism, and thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for heterogeneity if I Results: The meta-analysis included 24 observational studies with 78,938 patients, comprising 24,191 with LCP implantation and 54,747 with TVP implantation. The results indicated a significantly lower incidence of lead or device dislodgment (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.91-5.77, Conclusions: Compared with TVP, LCP implantation is associated with a lower risk of infective endocarditis, lead or device dislodgment, infections, and pocket-related complications. However, LCP implantation carries a higher risk of puncture site complications and pericardial effusion or perforation. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of patient-specific factors when choosing between LCP and TVP implantation. The PROSPERO Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD42023453145).
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.