Key result
The wireless-powered pacemaker reduced post-implant mortality to 10% compared to 57.1% with the battery-powered device, and achieved reliable pacing for up to 30 days versus 6 days.
Why the study?
Does a wireless-powered pacemaker improve survival and device function duration compared to a battery-powered pacemaker in adult mice?
Does a wireless-powered pacemaker improve survival and device function duration compared to a battery-powered pacemaker in adult mice?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 57.1%
A novel wireless-powered pacemaker for mice significantly reduces implant mortality and extends pacing duration up to 30 days compared to traditional battery-powered devices, enabling long-term electrophysiology studies in murine models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enables long-term murine electrophysiology studies; leaves open translation to larger models or clinical use.
Laughner et al. (2013) studied Need for chronic pacing in mouse models (n=24). Wireless-powered pacemaker vs. Battery-powered pacemaker was evaluated on Post-implant mortality. The wireless-powered pacemaker reduced post-implant mortality to 10% compared to 57.1% with the battery-powered device, and achieved reliable pacing for up to 30 days versus 6 days.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: