What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Editorial. Population: Bradycardia requiring long-term pacing. Intervention: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (L-PMs) vs. Conventional transvenous pacemaker systems.

February 28, 2026Open Access

Leadless Pacemakers: Clinical Advances, Outcomes, and Comparison With Conventional Systems

Key Result

Leadless pacemakers provide a safe alternative to conventional transvenous systems by eliminating lead and pocket complications, though they carry unique risks such as cardiac perforation (1-1.5%).

Structured PICO

Population

Patients requiring long-term pacing for bradycardia management

Intervention

Leadless cardiac pacemakers (L-PMs), including single-chamber, atrioventricular synchronous, and dual-chamber systems

Comparator

Conventional transvenous pacemaker systems

Leadless pacemakers provide a safe and effective alternative to transvenous systems by eliminating lead and pocket-related complications, though challenges remain regarding long-term management and device extraction.

Limitations

Long-term management remains a limitation, particularly in younger patients requiring multiple device implantations over a lifetime.
Retrieval of devices becomes difficult once endothelialisation occurs.
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) and defibrillation remain beyond the current capabilities of leadless devices.
Higher upfront device costs compared to conventional transvenous systems.

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Antoun et al. (Thu,) conducted a editorial in Bradycardia requiring long-term pacing. Leadless cardiac pacemakers (L-PMs) vs. Conventional transvenous pacemaker systems was evaluated. Leadless pacemakers provide a safe alternative to conventional transvenous systems by eliminating lead and pocket complications, though they carry unique risks such as cardiac perforation (1-1.5%).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a025a8b9cddff7633412d39 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31083/bjhm50278