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.
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。