What does this research mean for the field?

Temporary pacing with active-fixation leads (TPAF) reduces complications by 94.7% and overall costs by 55.72% compared to passive-fixation leads (TPPF). Novelty: ClaimNovelty.NOVEL_FINDING. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.SUPPORTS_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

Assess the clinical and economic impact of temporary pacing with active versus passive fixation leads.

January 10, 2026Journal of Clinical Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

Temporary Pacing with Active-Fixation Leads: Clinical and Economic Impact Versus Conventional Temporary Transvenous Pacing

RVRaimundo Vicente-MirallesUniversity of Alicante NRNuria Rivas-GándaraCentro de Investigación en Red en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares JPJosé Luis Antón PascualUniversity of Alicante

Key Result

Temporary pacing with active-fixation leads (TPAF) reduces complications by 94.7% and overall costs by 55.72% compared to passive-fixation leads (TPPF).

Key Points

Assess the clinical and economic impact of temporary pacing with active versus passive fixation leads.
Literature search on clinical outcomes of TPAF and TPPF
Descriptive comparative analysis of identified studies
Results extrapolated to Spanish, European, and global populations
Implementation of active-fixation leads could reduce complications by 94.7%
Economic evaluation estimates a 55.72% reduction in procedural costs
TPAF shows significant clinical improvement compared to TPPF despite higher initial costs

Structured PICO

Does temporary pacing with active fixation leads reduce complications and costs compared to passive fixation leads in patients requiring temporary pacing?

Population

Patients requiring temporary pacing (based on a literature search including 13 prospective articles)

Intervention

Temporary pacing with active fixation leads (TPAF)

Comparator

Conventional temporary pacing with passive fixation leads (TPPF)

Outcome

Clinical complications and economic cost of the proceduresafety

Temporary pacing with active-fixation leads is estimated to significantly reduce complications and overall healthcare costs compared to conventional passive-fixation leads.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The use of temporary pacemakers is increasing every year. Conventional temporary pacemakers are connected to the myocardium via a passive-fixation lead (temporary pacing with passive fixation leads; TPPF), which compromises their effectiveness and safety. Off-label active-fixation systems (temporary pacing with active fixation leads; TPAF) are a safer alternative. The main objective of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of TPAF versus TPPF. Methods: We conducted a literature search based on the clinical outcomes of both pacing techniques. We then carried out a descriptive comparative analysis and extrapolated the results to the Spanish, European, and global populations. Results: Of the 1015 articles located, the analysis included five articles from ECTSF and eight from ECTEFA, prospective and focused on the recording of complications. It is estimated that the implementation of ECTEFA as the first option for ECT would lead to a 94.7% reduction in complications. In economic terms, it would mean a 55.72% reduction in the cost of the procedure. Conclusions: TPAF leads to considerable clinical improvement compared with TPPF. Furthermore, while the price of TPAF doubles the procedural cost, the reduced cost of hospital stays and treating complications means the active-fixation systems could substantially reduce the overall cost of temporary pacing for healthcare systems.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper