Meta‐analysis of the incidence of lead dislodgement with conventional and leadless pacemaker systems

Introduction Leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) implantation using a transcatheter was recently developed to avoid pocket‐ and lead‐related complications. Although a LCP has an active fixation mechanism using tines or a helix, LCP and lead dislodgement issues remain a major safety concern for patients. This article reviews the literature to determine the incidence of lead and LCP dislodgement. Methods and results A total of 18 studies which included 17,321 patients undergoing conventional single‐ or dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation and three studies which included 2,116 patients undergoing LCP device implantation were reviewed. The incidence of lead dislodgement ranged from 1% to 2.69% in individual studies with a mean of 1.63%, weighted mean of 1.71%, and median of 1.60 %. There was a relatively higher lead dislodgement rate between atrial and ventricular electrodes (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–6.70; P = 0.6; I 2 = 0%), and between magnetic resonance imaging conditional and conventional leads (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.30–5.99; P = 0.16; I 2 = 46%). The use of active fixation leads (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.66–1.70; P = 0.29; I 2 = 20%) showed no significant difference in dislodgement risk compared to passive fixation leads. The incidence of LCP device dislodgement was 0%, 0.13%, and 1% in three leadless pacemaker studies. Conclusions The incidence rates of conventional pacemaker lead dislodgement vary in individual studies with an overall high incidence. Use of the currently available LCP systems appears to result in a lower rate of device dislodgement. This may reflect the effectiveness of this novel technology and the fixation design of LCP devices.