ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Variability in Pacemaker Battery Estimates and Performance.
Article 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPermanent pacemaker (PPM) battery longevity impacts downstream procedures, patient outcomes, and healthcare costs.
objectivesTo measure and predict PPM battery longevity in routine, clinical practice.
methodsWe analyzed a nationwide, multicenter, remote monitoring dataset (PaceMate) to evaluate PPM battery longevity from 2007 to 2023. Multivariable models identified factors associated with replacement interval (RI) across device types and manufacturers. We also compared observed versus expected battery longevity and assessed differences between newer and older generation pacemakers.
resultsWe included 58,395 devices from 47 sites: 5803 single-chamber transvenous, 1637 single-chamber leadless, 45,293 dual-chamber transvenous, 1759 RV/LV-only CRT pacemakers, and 3903 full CRT-P systems (1888 reaching RI). Median observed battery longevity for the 1493 dual chamber transvenous pacemakers that reached RI ranged from (103 months for BSX to 125 months for MDT and BIO), with similar trends after adjustment (p<0.001). There was variability in median battery longevity across manufacturers for other device types: 105-122 months for single-chamber transvenous, 61-96 months for RV/LV-only CRT pacemakers, and 77-93 months for full CRT-P systems. Compared with older generators, those implanted in 2022-23 demonstrated improved estimated battery longevity for Medtronic devices but decreased for Abbott (no significant change for Boston Scientific).
conclusionsObserved pacemaker battery longevity, based on nearly 2000 devices reaching ERI, varies substantially by manufacturer and device type, without consistent improvement for newer devices. Device-based estimates of remaining longevity show manufacturer-specific variability and are influenced by programming and utilization, highlighting the need for individualized expectations in clinical practice. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) battery longevity is clinically impactful and not well described in routine, clinical practice. We quantified pacemaker battery performance in a nationwide, multicenter, remote monitoring dataset, including 58,395 devices. Pacemaker battery longevity varies by manufacturer and device type, without consistent improvement for newer devices. Manufacturer-specific accuracy of battery longevity estimates and differences in device programming and utilization highlight the need for individualized expectations in clinical 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.