ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of leadless versus transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing: a propensity-weighted real-world study in France.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeadless pacemakers (LP) have emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous single-lead ventricular pacemakers (SLP), with expanding indications beyond initially selected patients. This study evaluated the clinical and economic outcomes of LP compared with SLP in eligible patients from a real-world French hospital cohort.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, propensity-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital-based perspective, including all patients who underwent first LP or SLP implantation between 2016 and 2020 at our center. Patients with contraindications or high risk of device failure or infection were excluded. Four-year costs and life-years were used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were derived from the bootstrapped distribution of net monetary benefits. Sensitivity analyses explored cost drivers and robustness.
resultsA total of 352 patients were included (104 LP, 248 SLP). After weighting, LP was associated with shorter procedure duration (52 vs 80 min;
conclusionsIn both device eligible patients, leadless pacemakers showed favorable procedural and clinical outcomes with comparable long-term costs, supporting their cost-effective use in real-world French hospital practice.
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.