Key result
Leadless pacemakers show similar survival to transvenous pacemakers post-TAVR, with fewer heart failure hospitalizations.
Why the study?
Permanent pacemaker implantation is a common complication after TAVR, and the clinical outcomes of leadless pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers remain uncertain.
Does leadless pacemaker implantation improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to transvenous pacemakers in patients requiring pacing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Meta-Analysis (n=10,809)
Does leadless pacemaker implantation improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to transvenous pacemakers in patients requiring pacing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Leadless pacemakers demonstrate comparable procedural success and overall survival to transvenous pacemakers following TAVR, with potential benefits in reducing length of hospital stay and heart failure hospitalizations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports leadless pacemakers after TAVR for lower heart failure hospitalizations with similar survival; extends meta-analytic evidence for their use in this setting.
Background Permanent pacemaker implantation is a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Leadless pacemakers (LPs) may reduce lead‐ and pocket‐related complications, but their clinical outcomes after TAVR remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated the safety and effectiveness of LPs compared with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). Methods PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to June 10, 2026. Randomized and observational studies were included. Random‐effects meta‐analyses pooled proportions, risk ratios (RRs), and mean differences (MDs). Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier data were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results Ten studies involving 10,809 patients (1030 LP and 9779 TVP recipients) were included. The pooled procedural success rate of LP implantation was 98% (95% CI 95%–99%). Implantation success was comparable between LP and TVP (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98–1.02). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a shorter hospital stay with LP (MD −1.37 days, 95% CI −2.33 to −0.41) and a lower risk of heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.96). Overall survival did not differ between groups (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.44–1.23), although reconstructed survival curves showed late separation favoring LP. Device‐related and vascular complications were comparable between LP and TVP. Conclusions LP implantation after TAVR demonstrates excellent procedural success and clinical outcomes comparable to TVPs. LPs may reduce hospital stay and heart failure hospitalization, supporting their use as an alternative pacing strategy in appropriately selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wijayanto et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requiring permanent pacemaker (n=10,809). Leadless pacemakers vs. Transvenous pacemakers was evaluated on Overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.44-1.23). Leadless pacemakers resulted in similar overall survival compared to transvenous pacemakers after TAVR, alongside a lower risk of heart failure hospitalization.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: