Leadless Pacemakers After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis With Time-to-Event Analysis.

Frengki Prabowo Saputro Wijayanto, Christopher Daniel Tristan, Muhammad Reva Aditya, Artha Maressa Theodora Simanjuntak, Raymond Pranata
{"title":"Leadless Pacemakers After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis With Time-to-Event Analysis.","authors":"Frengki Prabowo Saputro Wijayanto, Christopher Daniel Tristan, Muhammad Reva Aditya, Artha Maressa Theodora Simanjuntak, Raymond Pranata","doi":"10.1111/pace.70468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经导管主动脉瓣置换术后无铅起搏器:一项具有事件时间分析的meta分析。
背景:永久性起搏器植入是经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后常见的并发症。无铅起搏器(LPs)可能减少铅和口袋相关并发症,但TAVR后的临床结果仍不确定。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了LPs与经静脉起搏器(tpv)的安全性和有效性。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus和ScienceDirect,检索时间为建站至2026年6月10日。纳入随机和观察性研究。随机效应荟萃分析汇集了比例、风险比(rr)和平均差异(MDs)。重建Kaplan-Meier数据用于估计风险比(hr)。结果:纳入10项研究,共10809例患者(1030例LP和9779例TVP受者)。LP植入的总手术成功率为98% (95% CI 95%-99%)。LP和TVP的植入成功率相当(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02)。敏感性分析显示,LP患者住院时间较短(MD -1.37天,95% CI -2.33至-0.41),心力衰竭住院风险较低(RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.96)。尽管重建的生存曲线显示晚期分离有利于LP,但两组间的总生存率没有差异(HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.44-1.23)。器械相关并发症和血管并发症在LP和TVP之间具有可比性。结论:TAVR术后LP植入术成功,临床效果与TVPs相当。LPs可能减少住院时间和心力衰竭住院时间,支持其作为适当选择的患者的替代起搏策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Subcutaneous Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3-5: The Single-Arm STEADIED Study. Atrial Leadless Pacing: A Potential Strategy for Cardioinhibitory Vasovagal Syncope. Outcomes of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients Being Considered for Heart Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Evidence Synthesis. Ventricular False Tendons and Ventricular Arrhythmias: Distinguishing Incidental Findings From Culprit Substrates.
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1