ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Extravascular implantable cardioverter and leadless pacemaker interactions.
Article in 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. 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.
- Cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure: needs, challenges, and real-world implementation.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Advancements in pacing and ICD technologies: Potential implications for complex congenital heart disease in adults.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTraditional cardiac pacing and defibrillation devices rely on leads connected to a subcutaneous pulse generator, which can result in complications such as vascular damage, infection, or lead failure. Advances in technology have led to the development of leadless pacemakers, which combine the battery, circuitry, and electrodes into a single self-contained unit, and extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), which position electrodes outside the vasculature. These innovations offer promising alternatives for patients requiring both defibrillation and pacing, particularly those unable or unwilling to accommodate traditional leads. However, the interactions between extravascular ICDs and leadless pacemakers remain largely unexplored and currently lack regulatory approval for combined use. This study evaluates the interactions between leadless pacemakers and extravascular ICDs to assess their simultaneous operation. METHODS AND
resultsIn-silico simulations, saline-tank experiments, and Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to evaluate device interactions, focusing on ventricular fibrillation (VF) detection during pacing conditions. Ventricular fibrillation detection was unaffected by pacing pulse widths ≤0.24 ms, with a pacing pulse-to-VF amplitude ratio of ≤2 considered safe. Wider pulse widths or higher outputs progressively increased the risk of VF undersensing. Experiments confirmed that pacing pulses ≤3 V and ≤0.24 ms minimally impacted VF detection. Proximity of device affected pacing pulse amplitude sensed by the ICD, but pacemaker orientation did not. Monte Carlo simulations indicated a 0-4% probability of undesired interactions under clinically relevant conditions.
conclusionExtravascular ICDs and leadless pacemakers may safely coexist, with a low observed risk of VF undersensing in our study. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.