ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Comparison of Outcomes of Leadless Versus Transvenous Pacemakers Following Tricuspid Valve Surgery.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransvenous pacemaker implantation after tricuspid valve surgery may cause adverse outcomes due to lead-valve interactions. Although leadless pacemakers may mitigate these risks, empirical data remain limited.
methodsWe compared outcomes of leadless versus transvenous pacemakers following tricuspid surgery using a target trial emulation framework. We analyzed Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent tricuspid valve surgery and received a pacemaker during the index admission between 2017 and 2021, using propensity score matching weight analysis to control for confounders. Primary outcomes were in-hospital death and 2-year heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 2-year death.
resultsWe included 185 and 1336 patients in the leadless and transvenous groups, respectively. Use of leadless pacemakers increased from 6.3% in 2017 to 17.5% in 2021. Leadless pacemaker recipients more often underwent tricuspid valve replacement (29.2% versus 8.5%) while concomitant mitral surgery was less common (69.2% versus 86.8%). After adjustment, we found no evidence that in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.65-5.13] for leadless) and 2-year heart failure hospitalizations (subdistribution hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60-1.30] for leadless) differed between the 2 groups. We also found no evidence that 2-year death (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.57] for leadless) differed between groups.
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences were detected between leadless versus transvenous pacemaker implantations after tricuspid valve surgery. However, CIs were wide, and a clinically meaningful difference in either direction cannot be excluded. The study may therefore be underpowered, and the absence of echocardiographic data limits assessment of tricuspid regurgitation, warranting prospective studies.
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.