ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Long-Term Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker vs. Transvenous Pacemaker in End-Stage Renal Disease.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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 Pacing and Dialysis Patients: A Match Made in Heaven.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis have an increased risk of pacemaker-related complications due to limited vascular access and increased susceptibility to infection. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) may mitigate these risks compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TPMs), but long-term comparative data in this population remain limited.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, including adults (≥ 18 years) with ESRD on dialysis who underwent LPM or TPM implantation between May 2016 and December 2020. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes assessed over up to 5 years included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, device re-intervention, device-related complications, infection-related hospitalization, pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, and all-cause mortality.
resultsAfter matching, 901 patients were included in each group with well-balanced baseline characteristics. LPM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of device re-intervention compared with TPM (4.1% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.69; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in all-cause hospitalization (65.5% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.22), heart failure hospitalization (26.9% vs. 30.2%; p = 0.13), all-cause mortality (37.5% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.34), device-related complications (14.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.94), infection-related hospitalization (1.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.35), or pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (9.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.66).
conclusionIn a large, propensity-matched cohort of patients with ESRD on dialysis, LPMs were associated with fewer device re-interventions and comparable long-term clinical outcomes compared with TPMs.
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.