ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Leadless pacemaker in atrioventricular block patients with specific indications: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Leadless cardiac pacemakers are becoming a viable alternative to traditional intravenous pacemakers. This study aims to systematically evaluate the safety of using leadless pacemakers in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) who meet specific indications, based on existing published research. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Wanfang Database for clinical studies on leadless pacemaker treatment for atrioventricular block. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan and R software. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: A total of 60 studies were ultimately included, with AVB patients accounting for 6% to 100% of the implanted population. The overall incidence of adverse events in patients receiving leadless pacemakers was low. Among these, 16 studies provided complication data for the AVB subgroup and were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with the control group, leadless pacemakers did not significantly reduce the risk of adverse events in AVB patients (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.43-4.60, Conclusion: In patients with atrioventricular block, leadless pacemakers demonstrate no significant difference in the risk of adverse events compared with conventional pacemakers, with lower complication rates and favorable clinical feasibility.
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.