Key result
Leadless pacemakers had lower rates of electrode dislodgement (7% vs 56%, p<0.0001), pocket infection (3.4% vs 16%, p=0.02), and lead fracture (0% vs 8%, p=0.04) than conventional pacemakers.
Why the study?
Leadless pacemakers were introduced to avoid lead- and pocket-associated complications of conventional pacemakers, but the comparison of their complications was not well studied at a case-by-case level.
Do leadless pacemakers reduce complications compared to conventional artificial pacemakers?
Systematic Review (n=204)
Do leadless pacemakers reduce complications compared to conventional artificial pacemakers?
Leadless pacemakers demonstrate a superior safety profile regarding dislodgement, infection, and fracture compared to conventional pacemakers, though with a potential non-significant increase in pericardial effusion.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Complication comparisons between leadless and conventional pacemakers remain limited; leaves open need for prospective randomized data.
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPM) are introduced in cardiovascular market with a goal to avoid lead- and pocket-associated complications due to conventional artificial pacemakers (CPM). The comparison of LPM and CPM complications is not well studied at a case by case level. METHODS: Comprehensive literature was searched on multiple databases performed from inception to December 2019 and revealed 204 cases that received LPM with a comparison of CPM. The data of complications were extracted, screened by independent authors and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). RESULTS: The complications of CPM were high in comparison to LPM in terms of electrode dislodgement (56% vs 7% of cases, p-value < .0001), pocket site infection rate (16% vs 3.4%, p-value = 0.02), and a lead fracture rate (8% vs 0%, p-value = 0.04). LPMs had a statistically non-significant two-times high risk of pericardial effusion (8%) compared to CPMs (4%) with a p-value = 0.8. CONCLUSION: LPMs appear to have a better safety profile than CPMs. There was a low pocket site and lead-related infections in LPM as compared to CPM. However, LPM can have twice the risk of pericardial effusion than CPMs, but this was not statistically significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sattar et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Artificial pacemaker complications (n=204). Leadless pacemakers vs. Conventional artificial pacemakers was evaluated on Electrode dislodgement (p=< .0001). Leadless pacemakers had lower rates of electrode dislodgement (7% vs 56%, p<0.0001), pocket infection (3.4% vs 16%, p=0.02), and lead fracture (0% vs 8%, p=0.04) than conventional pacemakers.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: