Key result
Leadless pacemakers linked to ~56% lower risk of device re-intervention versus transvenous pacemakers.
Why the study?
Patients with ESRD on dialysis face increased pacemaker-related complications, and long-term comparative data between leadless pacemakers and transvenous pacemakers in this population remain limited.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation reduce device re-interventions and complications compared to transvenous pacemakers in adults with ESRD on dialysis?
Cohort (n=1,802)
Yes
Does leadless pacemaker implantation reduce device re-interventions and complications compared to transvenous pacemakers in adults with ESRD on dialysis?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with ESRD on dialysis, leadless pacemakers are associated with a significantly lower risk of device re-intervention compared to transvenous pacemakers, with similar long-term clinical outcomes.
Background Patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis have an increased risk of pacemaker‐related complications due to limited vascular access and increased susceptibility to infection. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) may mitigate these risks compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TPMs), but long‐term comparative data in this population remain limited. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, including adults (≥ 18 years) with ESRD on dialysis who underwent LPM or TPM implantation between May 2016 and December 2020. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes assessed over up to 5 years included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, device re‐intervention, device‐related complications, infection‐related hospitalization, pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy, and all‐cause mortality. Results After matching, 901 patients were included in each group with well‐balanced baseline characteristics. LPM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of device re‐intervention compared with TPM (4.1% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.69; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in all‐cause hospitalization (65.5% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.22), heart failure hospitalization (26.9% vs. 30.2%; p = 0.13), all‐cause mortality (37.5% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.34), device‐related complications (14.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.94), infection‐related hospitalization (1.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.35), or pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy (9.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.66). Conclusion In a large, propensity‐matched cohort of patients with ESRD on dialysis, LPMs were associated with fewer device re‐interventions and comparable long‐term clinical outcomes compared with TPMs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agarwal et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in End-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis (n=1,802). Leadless pacemaker (LPM) vs. Transvenous pacemaker (TPM) was evaluated on Device re-intervention (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p=< 0.01). Leadless pacemakers were associated with a significantly lower risk of device re-intervention compared with transvenous pacemakers (4.1% vs. 9.3%; HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28–0.69; p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: