Key result
Leadless pacemakers show no difference in adverse events versus conventional transvenous pacemakers in AV block.
Why the study?
The safety of leadless pacemakers in patients with atrioventricular block meeting specific indications has not been systematically evaluated.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation reduce the risk of adverse events compared to traditional transvenous pacemakers in patients with atrioventricular block?
Meta-Analysis (n=14,224)
Does leadless pacemaker implantation reduce the risk of adverse events compared to traditional transvenous pacemakers in patients with atrioventricular block?
In patients with atrioventricular block, leadless pacemakers demonstrate a favorable safety profile with no significant difference in adverse event risk compared to conventional transvenous pacemakers.
Supports leadless pacemaker use in atrioventricular block; extends trial data by confirming comparable safety in meta-analysis.
Background Leadless cardiac pacemakers are becoming a viable alternative to traditional intravenous pacemakers. This study aims to systematically evaluate the safety of using leadless pacemakers in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) who meet specific indications, based on existing published research. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Wanfang Database for clinical studies on leadless pacemaker treatment for atrioventricular block. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan and R software. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results A total of 60 studies were ultimately included, with AVB patients accounting for 6% to 100% of the implanted population. The overall incidence of adverse events in patients receiving leadless pacemakers was low. Among these, 16 studies provided complication data for the AVB subgroup and were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with the control group, leadless pacemakers did not significantly reduce the risk of adverse events in AVB patients (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.43–4.60, P = 0.57). Subgroup analysis by device type demonstrated no statistically significant differences in adverse event risks compared to traditional pacemakers for either single-chamber ventricular leadless pacemakers (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.03–2.01, P = 0.20) or AV-synchronous/dual-chamber leadless pacemakers (RR = 2.16, 95% CI: 0.76–6.17, P = 0.15), with no significant interaction between subgroups. In the single-arm rate analysis, five cohort studies reported an adverse event rate of 14% (95% CI: 0.04–0.24); after applying the Freeman-Tukey transformation to eleven single-arm studies, the adverse event rate was 1.15% (95% CI: 0.26%–2.67%). Conclusion In patients with atrioventricular block, leadless pacemakers demonstrate no significant difference in the risk of adverse events compared with conventional pacemakers, with lower complication rates and favorable clinical feasibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrioventricular block (AVB) (n=14,224). Leadless pacemaker vs. Traditional transvenous pacemakers was evaluated on Occurrence of adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.43-4.60, p=0.57). In patients with atrioventricular block, leadless pacemakers demonstrated no significant difference in the risk of adverse events compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (RR 1.41).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: