Key result
Leadless pacemakers maintain low complication rates, with ~2% complications at 1 year versus transvenous systems.
Why the study?
Traditional transvenous pacemakers have a high complication rate after implantation, and leadless pacemakers may reduce these risks but require comprehensive evaluation.
Do leadless cardiac pacemakers improve safety and efficacy compared with traditional transvenous pacemakers?
Do leadless cardiac pacemakers improve safety and efficacy compared with traditional transvenous pacemakers?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Leadless cardiac pacemakers represent a highly efficacious and safe alternative to traditional transvenous systems, with significantly reduced risks of infection, thrombosis, and lead-related complications.
Background: Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, accounting for more than 30% of all deaths. Traditional transvenous pacemakers are widely used; however, the complication rate after implantation reaches 10–15%. Leadless pacemakers significantly reduce the risk of complications, with rates of approximately 0.46% within 90 days and 1.77% within one year. Therefore, this technology is considered a promising direction in modern cardiac pacing. The aim is analyzing current scientific evidence on the use of leadless pacemakers. Materials and Methods. For the preparation of this literature review, contemporary scientific publications devoted to the clinical application, efficacy, safety, and future prospects of leadless pacemakers were analyzed. The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for the period from 2015 to 2026. Original studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines published in English and Russian were included. Publications without full-text access, duplicate data, and studies lacking clinical relevance were excluded. Results. The literature analysis demonstrated that leadless pacemakers show high efficacy and safety, characterized by a low rate of complications and stable pacing parameters. Their use reduces the risk of infections, thrombosis, and lead dysfunction compared with traditional transvenous systems. Conclusions. Leadless cardiac pacing is a promising direction in modern cardiology. Further technological development and expansion of indications will improve the effectiveness of arrhythmia management and clinical outcomes in patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarsenbayeva et al. (2026) conducted a review in Arrhythmia. Leadless cardiac pacemakers vs. Traditional transvenous pacemakers was evaluated. Leadless pacemakers demonstrate high safety, with complication rates of approximately 0.46% at 90 days and 1.77% at 1 year, reducing infection and thrombosis risks versus transvenous systems.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: