MARATTO

article · Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Leadless vs. Conventional Transvenous Pacemakers in Valve Intervention Patients: A Systematic Review & Meta‐Analysis

2026Open accessAssiut University

Abstract

In this meta-analysis, LP implantation was associated with reduced ventricular pacing burden, but at the expense of a longer hospital stay and increased mortality risk compared with conventional TVP. No significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of rehospitalization, pocket infection, lead/device dislodgement, and vascular complications. These findings suggest that although LP were associated with higher observed mortality, this association is likely driven by selection bias, as leadless devices are preferentially implanted in patients with higher baseline risk and greater comorbidity burden. Randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the comparative safety of leadless versus TVP while minimizing confounding by indication.

Research topics

  • Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1111/pace.70148

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.