ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Effective and potentially retrievable: will leadless pacemakers become gold standard for pause prevention pacing?
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) constitute a significant advancement in the management of bradyarrhythmias by eliminating complications associated with transvenous leads and subcutaneous pockets. Accumulating evidence demonstrates substantial clinical benefits, including a marked reduction in complications, particularly infections, and fewer system revisions as compared with transvenous pacemakers (TVPMs). However, several limitations preclude their widespread adoption. Cardiac tamponade occurs in up to 2% of cases, requiring sternotomy in approximately one third. Management of devices at the elective replacement interval through intracardiac abandonment raises concerns, particularly in younger patients; experience with extraction remains limited and entails substantial risks, with severe complications occurring in up to 3% of cases. Limitations in atrioventricular synchronization persist despite technological advances, and cardiac resynchronization therapy remains unavailable. LPMs are emerging as the preferred option for selected populations at high risk of infection, whereas TVPMs maintain a predominant role owing to their versatility and capacity to deliver advanced therapies. LPMs are gaining traction in specific high-risk subgroups and may expand their indications as technology evolves; however, they are likely to coexist with TVPMs rather than supplant them entirely in the medium term.
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.