ReviewHeart rhythm O22026
Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leadless pacemaker in atrioventricular block patients with specific indications: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are emerging as a transformative alternative to traditional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs) for managing brady-arrhythmias. Unlike TVPs, LPs eliminate the need for leads and subcutaneous generator pockets, addressing complications. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LPs, including Micra (Medtronic) and Aveir VR (Abbott) devices, in comparison to TVPs. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 55 studies involving 286,349 patients met the inclusion criteria. Results: LPs demonstrated significantly lower risks of pneumothorax (relative risk [RR], 0.29; Conclusion: LPs offer distinct advantages over TVPs, including reduced risks of certain complications and improved procedural efficiency.
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.