Key result
Leadless pacemakers had a 1.52% incidence of cardiac perforation compared to a mean of 0.82% for conventional pacemakers, suggesting a slightly higher risk likely due to a learning curve.
Why the study?
What is the incidence of cardiac perforation with leadless pacemaker systems compared to conventional pacemaker systems?
Meta-Analysis (n=60,744)
What is the incidence of cardiac perforation with leadless pacemaker systems compared to conventional pacemaker systems?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.52% vs 0.82%
Leadless pacemakers appear to have a slightly higher risk of cardiac perforation compared to conventional pacemakers, which may reflect a learning curve with the novel technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leadless pacemakers were associated with slightly higher perforation risk; leaves open whether this reflects learning curve or device design.
Vámos et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Pacemaker implantation (n=60,744). Leadless pacemaker systems vs. Conventional pacemaker systems was evaluated on Incidence of cardiac perforation. Leadless pacemakers had a 1.52% incidence of cardiac perforation compared to a mean of 0.82% for conventional pacemakers, suggesting a slightly higher risk likely due to a learning curve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: