ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2024
Patient Preferences for Features Associated With Leadless Versus Conventional Transvenous Cardiac Pacemakers.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05327101 (Quantifying Patient Preferences for Leadless Pacemaker Devices), which is not on this 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.
Quantifying Patient Preferences for Leadless Pacemaker Devices
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Preferences of Patients and Cardiologists Regarding Pacemaker Characteristics in Spain: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Article
- Pacemakers in Modern Cardiology and Their Transition From Traditional to Leadless Models.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegulatory approval of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system provides patients an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers. The study objective was to quantify the preferences of patients for pacemaker features.
methodsPatients with a de novo (ie, initial) pacemaker indication were recruited from 7 US sites to complete a Web-based discrete-choice experiment survey between May 11, 2022, and May 24, 2023. Patients chose between pairs of experimentally designed, hypothetical pacemakers that varied according to type (removable leadless, nonremovable leadless, or conventional transvenous); battery life (5, 8, 12, or 15 years); time since regulatory approval (2 or 10 years); discomfort for 6 months (none or discomfort); and complication risk and infection risk (1%, 5%, or 10%/20% for each). Patients' choice data were analyzed using random-parameter logit models and latent-class analysis.
resultsAmong 117 participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (14.6) years, 94% were white, and 42% were female. On average, patients' survey responses revealed a preference for removable leadless pacemakers (β, 0.340; SE, 0.096) over both nonremovable leadless pacemakers (β, -0.310; SE, 0.131;
conclusionsLatent-class analysis revealed strong patient preferences for the type of pacemaker, with a nearly equal split between recent leadless pacemaker technology and conventional transvenous pacemakers. These findings can inform shared decision-making between health care providers and patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05327101.
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.