Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40135099›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2025

Long-term management of leadless pacemakers.

Andrew Andreae, Alexander Breitenstein, Jonathan P Piccini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Removal of tine-based leadless pacemakers: insights from a large multicentre experience.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Micra leadless pacemaker revisions: incidence, characteristics, and outcomes from a multicentre French cohort.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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Procedural tricuspid valve damage associated with leadless pacemakers.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew AndreaeElectrophysiology Section, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Box 31115, 2301 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Alexander BreitensteinElectrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jonathan P PicciniElectrophysiology Section, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Box 31115, 2301 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are increasingly being used to treat bradyarrhythmias, and end of service (EOS) management decisions are becoming increasingly important given finite battery lifespans. Two strategies have been adopted for device EOS: LP abandonment and LP removal. Certain scenarios including high degree of LP encapsulation and 'last expected' pacing devices favour LP abandonment, while other LP complications may necessitate device removal. When abandoning LP, clinicians must understand design, performance, and safety considerations for devices left in place. When removing LP, specialized tools and techniques have been developed, each varying by device manufacturer and model. Case reports and series on LP removal have elucidated how to overcome challenges that may arise during removal. Despite best practice techniques, complications can arise before and after removal. Current studies on LP EOS management are limited, and further studies are needed to help understand predictors of successful device removal and long-term sequelae of both strategies. The aim of this state-of-the-art review is to help clinicians understand current strategies and considerations for both LP abandonment and removal.

Indexed as

AbandonmentEnd of lifeExplantExtractionLeadless pacemakerRemovalRetrievalState-of-the-art review

Identifiers

PMID40135099
PMCPMC11932086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.