ReviewCureus2025
Pacemakers in Modern Cardiology and Their Transition From Traditional to Leadless Models.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac rhythm disorders are a major subset of cardiovascular diseases and continue to pose significant global health challenges. Pacemakers remain central to their management, with evolving technologies offering improved therapeutic outcomes. This narrative review traces the progression of pacemaker technology from traditional cardiac pacemakers (TCPs) to leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs), emphasizing key differentiators such as implantation techniques, complication profiles, and long-term clinical performance. While TCPs have proven effective, they are associated with issues like lead-related complications, infections, and mechanical failures. In contrast, LCPs, which are implanted via minimally invasive transcatheter approaches and lack transvenous leads, significantly reduce these risks, resulting in improved patient satisfaction and fewer hospitalizations. Although limited to single-chamber pacing and higher initial costs, LCPs may prove cost-effective over time due to lower complication-related expenses. This review synthesizes current evidence on safety, efficacy, and patient outcomes and explores recent advancements, including multicomponent systems, energy-harvesting mechanisms, and biocompatible materials. Many of these innovations are in preclinical or early clinical stages but hold promise for broader applicability and long-term sustainability. Despite challenges, the trajectory of pacemaker technology underscores its potential to revolutionize cardiac care, driven by increasing clinical adoption of leadless systems, evolving regulatory approvals, and a growing emphasis on equitable access and personalized management.
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.