Key result
Leadless pacemakers yield comparable major complications to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in elderly Asian patients.
Why the study?
The large delivery sheath of leadless pacemakers raises safety concerns in small-framed elderly Asian patients, but data in this population remain scarce.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation improve procedural safety and feasibility compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in elderly small-framed Asian patients?
Cohort (n=149)
Yes
Does leadless pacemaker implantation improve procedural safety and feasibility compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in elderly small-framed Asian patients?
Leadless pacemaker implantation is safe, feasible, and associated with shorter procedure times and fewer prolonged hospitalizations compared to transvenous systems in frail, small-framed Asian octogenarians.
LPM may offer procedural advantages in frail elderly Asians; leaves open long-term outcomes versus TV-PM.
Background Leadless pacemaker (LPM) therapy eliminates pocket- and lead-related complications of transvenous systems, however its large delivery sheath may raise safety concerns in small-framed elderly Asian patients. Data in this population remain scarce. Aim To assess the procedural safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of LPM implantation in elderly Asian patients, and to compare them with transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (TV-PM). Methods We retrospectively analyzed 149 consecutive patients (90 LPM, 59 TV-PM) aged ≥80 years who underwent pacemaker implantation at three Japanese centers between 2010 and 2021. Primary endpoints were procedural safety and feasibility. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, heart-failure hospitalization, and device-related complications within 2 years Results Median age was 90 [83–94] vs 84 [83–95] years; mean height 148.8 ± 9.7 vs 155.8 ± 12.2 cm, confirming a smaller body habitus in this Asian cohort. LVEF was similar (60.0% vs 64.5%, p = 0.16), but renal dysfunction was more common in TV-SPM (76.3% vs 46.7%, p < 0.001). All implantations were successful. Despite frailty and smaller anatomy, LPM procedures were shorter (55.7 ± 25.8 vs 78.5 ± 15.8 min, p = 0.008) and required fewer prolonged hospitalizations (>48 h beyond plan: 48.9% vs 64.4%, p = 0.05). Major complications were infrequent and comparable (5.6% vs 11.9%, p = 0.14). Conclusion LPM implantation is safe and feasible even in frail, small-framed Asian octogenarians. These findings suggest that LPM can overcome anatomical and procedural limitations of transvenous systems, supporting broader adoption in aging Asian populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asami et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker indication in elderly small-framed patients (n=149). Leadless pacemaker (LPM) vs. Transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (TV-PM) was evaluated on Procedural safety and feasibility (major complications) (p=0.14). Leadless pacemaker implantation in elderly Asian patients was safe and feasible, with major complications comparable to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (5.6% vs 11.9%, p=0.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: