Leadless pacemakers provided comparable 24-month event-free survival to standard transvenous pacemakers (82.1% vs. 80.4%, p=0.29) in patients undergoing ablate-and-pace for atrial fibrillation.
Cohort
Yes
Does a leadless pacemaker improve clinical outcomes compared to a standard transvenous pacemaker in patients undergoing ablate-and-pace for permanent atrial fibrillation?
168 consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) and indication to ablate-and-pace, mean age 79.5, 45.2% male, multinational (4 European centers across Belgium, France, Italy). Key inclusion: symptomatic permanent AF with indication to ablate-and-pace. Key exclusion: age <18 years, left bundle branch pacemaker or biventricular CRT pacemaker, transient/reversible AF, planned rhythm control, QRS duration ≥130 ms, LVEF <50%.
Leadless pacemaker (Micra VR) combined with atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation, programmed to VVI mode at a lower rate of 70 bpm.
Conventional transvenous single-chamber VVI pacemaker (Azure XT SR MRI with CapSure Fix Novus MRI lead) combined with AVN ablation, programmed to VVI mode at a lower rate of 70 bpm.
Composite incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, AF-related hospitalizations, unplanned outpatient visits for AF, and device-related hospitalizations or reinterventions at 24 months.composite
Leadless pacemakers provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous systems in patients undergoing ablate-and-pace for atrial fibrillation, while enabling shorter hospitalizations through a streamlined single-step approach.
Background In patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) who are not candidates for rhythm control, atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation followed by ventricular pacing “ablate-and-pace” offers reliable rate control and symptom relief. Conventional transvenous systems are effective but associated with lead- and pocket-related complications. Leadless pacemakers represent a promising alternative, yet comparative data in this setting remain scarce. The aim is to compare clinical outcomes of leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in patients undergoing AVN ablation for permanent AF. Methods We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study (LEAD-AP) of 168 consecutive patients undergoing ablate-and-pace between 2,017 and 2024 across four European centers. Patients received either a leadless pacemaker ( n = 56) or a conventional transvenous VVI pacemaker ( n = 112). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, AF-related hospitalizations, unplanned visits and device-related hospitalizations or reinterventions. The secondary efficacy endpoint was device-related hospitalizations or reinterventions. The primary safety endpoint was acute complications within 30 days. Results Patients in the leadless group more frequently underwent a single-step ablate-and-pace strategy (96.4% vs. 10.9%, p 0.001), resulting in shorter hospitalization (1.1 days ± 3.1 vs. 5.7 days ± 2.2, p = 0.008). At 24 months of follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between patients with leadless pacemaker vs. standard single-chamber VVI pacemaker in the event-free survival for the clinical efficacy endpoint (82.1% vs. 80.4% Log-Rank p = 0.29). Conclusions Leadless pacemakers provide comparable safety and efficacy to transvenous systems in ablate-and-pace patients, while enabling shorter hospitalization through a streamlined single-step approach.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ingrid Overeinder
Luigi Alfonso Pannone
Domenico Laviola
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
University of Verona
Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel
Clinique Pasteur
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Overeinder et al. (Mon,) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (n=168). Leadless pacemaker vs. Standard single-chamber transvenous pacemaker was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, AF-related hospitalizations, unplanned outpatient visits for AF, and device-related hospitalizations or reinterventions (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, p=0.29). Leadless pacemakers provided comparable 24-month event-free survival to standard transvenous pacemakers (82.1% vs. 80.4%, p=0.29) in patients undergoing ablate-and-pace for atrial fibrillation.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a7d3ecb39a600b3edd87 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1741074