Leadless pacemakers demonstrate high implantation success rates and fewer long-term complications compared to transvenous systems in the treatment of bradyarrhythmias.
Do leadless pacemakers reduce complications compared to transvenous pacing systems in patients with bradyarrhythmias?
Leadless pacemakers are an established, safe, and effective alternative to transvenous systems, offering high implantation success and fewer long-term complications, with ongoing advancements in dual-chamber and CRT capabilities.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) are an established alternative to transvenous pacing systems for the treatment of bradyarrhythmias. This review outlines the evolution of LPMs, summarizes available safety and efficacy data, and highlights future development for leadless systems and the challenges that lie ahead. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from prospective cohort studies, large patient registries, and meta-analyses demonstrate high implantation success rates and fewer long-term complications with LPMs when compared to transvenous systems. Recent advances in leadless systems include dual-chamber devices capable of atrial and ventricular synchronous pacing and LPMs integrated with subcutaneous defibrillators. Future directions for leadless systems include leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy and leadless conduction system pacing. However, unresolved issues remain, including management of device end of life. LPMs are transforming cardiac pacing by reducing complications frequently observed with transvenous systems. Continued technological refinement and long-term clinical evaluation will guide broader adoption and optimize outcomes.
Furman et al. (Mon,) reported a other. Leadless pacemakers demonstrate high implantation success rates and fewer long-term complications compared to transvenous systems in the treatment of bradyarrhythmias.