SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Leadless and Transvenous Pacemakers: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeadless pacemakers have been developed to reduce complications associated with transvenous systems; however, their impact on pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of PICM following leadless pacing, compared PICM risk with transvenous pacing, and assessed cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched up to January 2026. Studies reporting PICM following leadless pacing or comparing leadless and transvenous systems were included. Random-effects models estimated pooled prevalence and risk ratios (RRs), and meta-regression explored potential modifiers.
resultsEight studies comprising 3224 patients with leadless pacing were included. The pooled prevalence of PICM following leadless pacing was 13% (95%CI: 4%-23%; I
conclusionLeadless pacemakers demonstrate a non-inferior risk of PICM and similar safety profiles to transvenous systems, while a lower observed rate of CRT upgrade. Future studies should standardize PICM definitions and improve reporting of pacing burden, ventricular function, and patient-level outcomes.
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.