Leadless pacemaker versus transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy: peri-procedural aspects, utilization of medical resources and patient acceptance

Systematic review of leadless pacemaker

Conventional pacing systems consist of a pacemaker and one or more leads threaded from the device pocket through veins into the heart conducting the pacing therapy to the desired pacing site. Although these devices are effective, approximately one in eight patients treated with these traditional pacing systems experiences a complication attributed to the pacemaker pocket or leads. With the technological advances in electronics, leadless pacemakers that small enough to implant within the heart were introduced. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing including complications related to leads or pacemaker pockets. This review aims to provide an overview of advantages of leadless pacemaker, complications and limitations of leadless pacemaker, leadless pacemaker candidate, and future directions of this promising technology.

Transvenous Compared With Leadless Pacemakers: A meta-analysis comparing TP versus LP

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of leadless pacemakers (LPs) and transvenous pacemakers and to examine the safety of both methods. We included patients undergoing single-chamber pacemaker implantation, either LP or TVP. Our outcomes were successful implantation rate, major complication, vascular injury, tamponade, and pneumothorax. We performed a double-arm analysis comparing LP versus TVP, with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding efficacy endpoints, RR revealed no significant difference between the LP and transvenous pacemaker groups in terms of successful rate of implantation (RR = 1.00; P = 0.77). Regarding safety outcomes, LP experienced lower incidence of major complications (RR = 0.47; P = 0.01), infection (RR = 0.24; P = 0.001), and tamponade (RR = 0.36; P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups regarding pneumothorax (RR = 0.35; P = 0.22) and vascular injury (RR = 1.55; P = 0.25). The study findings suggest that both LPs and TVPs have similar effectiveness. Moreover, the incidences of pneumothorax, vascular injuries, and major complications were found to be comparable between the 2 methods. However, LPs were found to have lower rates of infection and tamponade.

Comparative assessment of safety with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers (LP) and transvenous pacemakers (TVP) are two stable pacing platforms currently available in clinical practice. Observational data show mixed results with regards to their comparative safety. This meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the comparative safety of LP over TVP.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO registry (CRD42022325376). Six databases were searched for published literature from inception to April 12, 2022. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference were used to estimate the outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 879 studies were imported from the databases. Among these, 41 papers were screened for full text and 17 meet the inclusion criteria. Among them, pooled results showed 42% lower odds of occurrence of complications in the LP group (OR 0.58, CI 0.42-0.80) compared to TVP group. Notably, 70% lower odds of device dislodgment (OR 0.30, CI 0.21-0.43), 46% lower odds of re-intervention (OR 0.54, CI 0.45-0.64), 87% lower odds of pneumothorax (OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.57), albeit, 2.65 times higher odds of pericardial effusion (OR 2.65, CI 1.49-4.70) were observed in the LP group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed LP to be a significantly safer modality compared to TVP, in terms of re-intervention, device dislodgment, pneumothoraxes, and overall complications. However, there were higher rates of pericardial effusion in the LP group. There was a diverse number of patients included, and all studies were observational. Randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.

Comparison of Safety of Leadless Pacemakers and Transvenous Pacemakers: A Meta-Analysis

Pacemakers have been accessible for six decades, and clearly defined criteria for pacemaker implantation have been established. Within the contemporary clinical practice, two dependable pacing platforms exist leadless pacemakers and transvenous pacemakers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety of leadless pacemakers to transvenous pacemakers. This meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework. A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted across various databases including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, spanning from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis were total complications, all-cause mortality, and device-related complications. Furthermore, secondary outcomes evaluated encompassed the need for reintervention, occurrences of pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, endocarditis, hemothorax, and hematoma. Total 17 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings of this study showed that patients with leadless pacemakers had a lower risk of total complications, device-related complications, pneumothorax, and endocarditis. The risk of reintervention was significantly lower in the leadless pacemaker group. However, compared to a transvenous pacemaker, the risk of pericardial effusion was significantly higher in the leadless pacemaker group. It is important to acknowledge the limitations arising from the lack of extensive long-term follow-up data for leadless pacemakers. As technology evolves, continued research will be essential in uncovering the full spectrum of prolonged complications associated with these devices.

Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis

AIMS

The safety and efficacy of leadless intracardiac-permanent pacemaker (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but data on comparisons with conventional transvenous-permanent pacemaker (T-PM) collected in a consecutive, prospective fashion are limited. The aim of this analysis was to compare the rate and the nature of device-related complications between patients undergoing L-PM vs. T-PM implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, multicentre, observational project enrolling consecutive patients who underwent L-PM or T-PM implantation. The rate and nature of device-related complications were analysed and compared between the two groups. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed. A total of 2669 (n = 665 L-PM) patients were included and followed for a median of 39 months, L-PM patients were on average older and had more co-morbidities. The risk of device-related complications at 12 months was significantly lower in the L-PM group (0.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.009). Propensity matching yielded 442 matched pairs. In the matched cohort, L-PM patients trended toward having a lower risk of overall device-related complications (P = 0.129), had a similar risk of early complications (≤30 days) (P = 1.000), and had a significantly lower risk of late complications (>30 days) (P = 0.031). All complications observed in L-PM group were early. Most (75.0%) of complications observed in T-PM group were lead- or pocket-related.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, the risk of device-related complications associated with L-PM implantation tended to be lower than that of T-PM. Specifically, the risk of early complications was similar in two types of PMs, while the risk of late complications was significantly lower for L-PM than T-PM.

Leadless transcatheter pacemaker: Indications, implantation technique and peri-procedural patient management in the Italian clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence.