Leadless pacemakers demonstrated favorable procedural and clinical outcomes with comparable long-term costs versus transvenous pacing, supporting their cost-effectiveness in real-world practice.
Do leadless pacemakers improve procedural and clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing in device eligible patients?
Leadless pacemakers demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes and comparable long-term costs to transvenous pacing, supporting their cost-effective use in real-world practice.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
In both device eligible patients, leadless pacemakers showed favorable procedural and clinical outcomes with comparable long-term costs, supporting their cost-effective use in real-world French hospital practice.
Avry et al. (Mon,) reported a other. Leadless pacemakers demonstrated favorable procedural and clinical outcomes with comparable long-term costs versus transvenous pacing, supporting their cost-effectiveness in real-world practice.