ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025
Leadless Pacemakers: The "Leading Edge" of Quality of Life in Cardic Electrophysiology.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2025. 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.
- Cost-effectiveness of leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing: a propensity-weighted real-world study in France.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Atrioventricular Synchronous Leadless Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: Results and Implications From an Exploratory Analysis for Japan.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Extraction Complications in Transvenous Versus Leadless Pacemakers.Cureus · 2026Review
- Leadless Pacemakers in Complex Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the reviewPermanent pacemakers (PPMs) are common cardiac implantable devices indicated for patients with bradycardia or tachycardia. Currently, PPMs include both transvenous pacemakers (TV-PM) and leadless pacemakers (L-PM). This paper reviews the existing data on L-PM technology including: a) medical aspects and indications, b) patient experience and quality of life (QOL) outcome studies, and c) recommendations for optimizing patient QOL through enhanced knowledge and shared decision-making. RECENT
findingsThis review includes the seven papers that report on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in leadless pacemakers and indicate that QOL is as good, if not better, than TV-PM. Existing evidence from descriptive statistics suggests that patients with L-PM report high levels of patient acceptance and satisfaction with esthetic appearance (96%), recovery (91%), and level of physical activity (74%). Leadless pacemakers provide an attractive alternative for the indicated potential patient. The evidence demonstrates the benefits of L-PM such as a minimal implant and lack of leads. Recommendations for future research indicate that electrophysiology-specific metrics are essential and control for the common co-morbidities in the PM population are needed.
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.