Key result
Single-chamber leadless pacemakers show comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous pacemakers.
Why the study?
With technologic advances and growing evidence over a decade since its clinical introduction, leadless pacing has transitioned from an experimental therapy to an established treatment option.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“The long-term safety (excluding advisory-related complications) and efficacy of leadless pacemakers were adequate. No complications occurred more than three months after implantation, which may be a specific benefit of leadless pacemakers. The pacing threshold of leadless pacemakers is stable over time, in contrast to the gradually rising threshold of transvenous pacemakers. Our study results confirm the findings of previous studies and are promising for longer-term data on leadless pacing.”
“Recent state-of-the-art reviews highlighted the now 10 years of experiences with leadless pacemakers and their successes and significant future possibilities. These authors point to the potential suitability of leadless pacemakers being paired with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapies and even energy harvesting leadless pacemakers.”
This review highlights the evolution, safety, and efficacy of leadless pacemakers over the past decade, establishing them as a standard treatment option.
Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are self-contained pacemakers implanted inside the heart, providing a clinical strategy of pacing without pacemaker leads or a subcutaneous pocket. From an experimental therapy first used clinically in 2012, a decade later this technology is an established treatment option. Because of technologic advances and growing evidence, LPs are increasingly being used. Herein, the experience gained from a decade of leadless pacing is reviewed. We cover the safety and efficacy of single-chamber LPs, including comparisons with transvenous pacemakers and various models, and the initial clinical results of the first dual-chamber LP system. Furthermore, evidence and considerations regarding the optimal replacement strategy will be covered. Finally, we discuss future device developments that may broaden indications, such as LPs communicating with subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators and energy-harvesting LPs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Breeman et al. (2024) conducted a review in Cardiac pacing. Leadless pacemakers vs. Transvenous pacemakers was evaluated. Leadless pacemakers have become an established treatment option over the past decade, with evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of single-chamber devices compared to transvenous pacemakers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: