Key result
Leadless pacemakers offer a promising alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers, demonstrating favorable initial safety and efficacy profiles with a reduction in lead- and pocket-related complications.
Why the study?
Do leadless pacemakers improve safety and efficacy compared to conventional transvenous pacemakers in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Do leadless pacemakers improve safety and efficacy compared to conventional transvenous pacemakers in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Leadless pacemakers represent a safe and efficacious alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers, eliminating pocket and lead-related complications, though randomized trials are needed.
May reduce lead- and pocket-related issues in select patients; leaves open need for long-term randomized confirmation.
Leadless pacemakers are evolving as a new technologic alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers, though potential short-term and long-term complications have been recognized. The two currently available right ventricular leadless pacing systems are the Nanostim™ Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) and the Micra™ Transcatheter Pacing System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). This review aims to highlight the safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers using these two devices as exemplars.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ammari et al. (2018) conducted a review in Indications for permanent pacing (e.g., bradycardia, sick sinus syndrome). Leadless pacemakers (Nanostim LCP and Micra TPS) vs. Conventional transvenous pacemakers was evaluated. Leadless pacemakers offer a promising alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers, demonstrating favorable initial safety and efficacy profiles with a reduction in lead- and pocket-related complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: