Key result
Leadless pacemakers are associated with lower device infection risk versus transvenous devices.
Why the study?
Leadless pacemakers offer a lower risk of device infection compared to transvenous pacemakers, but concomitant infections involving both device types are not well characterized.
Case Report
Highlights the rare occurrence of concomitant infection involving both transvenous and leadless pacemakers.
May warrant vigilance for concomitant infections in dual-device patients; leaves open broader applicability of leadless pacemaker infection data.
Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) are an increasingly used form of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) in patients requiring permanent pacing, as they offer a minimally invasive option, and eliminate lead-related and generator-related complications associated with transvenous pacemakers. One significant advantage of LPMs is the lower risk of device infection compared to transvenous devices. Garweg et al1 found no cases of infection in patients implanted with the Micra (Medtronic, Minneapolis Minnesota) LPM even in patients with active bacteremia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phan et al. (2026) conducted a case report in Device infection. Leadless pacemakers vs. Transvenous pacemakers was evaluated on Device infection. Leadless pacemakers are associated with a lower risk of device infection compared to transvenous devices, though concomitant infections can occur.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: