What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Single-chamber ventricular pacing with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=103). Intervention: Leadless pacemaker (LPM) vs. Conduction system pacing (CSP). Primary outcome: Total procedure duration (minutes) (p=0.048).

March 31, 2026Heart Rhythm O20 citationsOpen Access

Real-world comparison of conduction system pacing and helix-based leadless pacemakers in single-chamber pacing: Procedural outcomes from the PACEMAN study

BSBehnam SubinElectrophysiology CICorinne IseneggerUniversity Hospital of Basel FMFelix MahfoudUniversity Hospital of Basel

Key Result

Leadless pacemaker implantation was associated with a shorter total procedure duration (39 vs 45 minutes) but longer fluoroscopy time compared to conduction system pacing.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=103)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does leadless pacemaker implantation compared to conduction system pacing improve procedural outcomes and electrical performance in patients requiring single-chamber ventricular pacing with preserved LVEF?

Population

103 patients requiring single-chamber ventricular pacing with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)

Intervention

Leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation (n=68)

Comparator

Conduction system pacing (CSP) (n=35)

Outcome

Procedural characteristics (procedure duration, fluoroscopy time), electrical performance (paced QRS duration), and acute complications

In patients requiring single-chamber pacing, leadless pacemakers offer shorter procedure times with 100% acute success, while conduction system pacing provides more physiological ventricular activation but with lower acute success and longer procedure times.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 39% vs 45%

p-value: p=0.048

Limitations

Observational design
Modest sample size
Lack of long-term follow-up
Baseline differences in pacing indication and functional status
Potential operator-related confounding
Procedural characteristics may differ across leadless platforms, limiting generalizability

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Subin et al. (Sun,) conducted a cohort in Single-chamber ventricular pacing with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=103). Leadless pacemaker (LPM) vs. Conduction system pacing (CSP) was evaluated on Total procedure duration (minutes) (p=0.048). Leadless pacemaker implantation was associated with a shorter total procedure duration (39 vs 45 minutes) but longer fluoroscopy time compared to conduction system pacing.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a025cc7edf6f481385949a2 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2026.03.010