Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Leadless and Transvenous Pacemakers: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.
Frengki Prabowo Saputro Wijayanto, Artha Maressa Theodora Simanjuntak, Christopher Daniel Tristan et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This meta-analysis evaluated the prevalence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in 3224 patients with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous systems. The pooled prevalence of PICM following leadless pacing was 13%. The risk of PICM was similar between leadless and transvenous pacing (RR 1.00), while leadless pacing showed a lower rate of cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade (RR 0.56).
Key findings
- Pooled prevalence of PICM following leadless pacing was 13% (95%CI: 4%-23%).
- Risk of PICM was similar between leadless and transvenous pacing (RR 1.00; 95%CI: 0.77-1.29).
- Leadless pacing was associated with a lower rate of CRT upgrade (RR 0.56; 95%CI: 0.48-0.66).
- Baseline heart failure was a significant predictor of PICM (p < 0.0001).
Why it matters
Understanding the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is crucial for clinicians when selecting pacing systems. This study suggests that leadless pacemakers may not increase PICM risk compared to traditional systems, which could influence device choice.