Complications of leadless vs conventional (lead) artificial pacemakers - a retrospective review.
Publication/Presentation Date
8-2-2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPM) are introduced in cardiovascular market with a goal to avoid lead- and pocket-associated complications due to conventional artificial pacemakers (CPM). The comparison of LPM and CPM complications is not well studied at a case by case level.
METHODS: Comprehensive literature was searched on multiple databases performed from inception to December 2019 and revealed 204 cases that received LPM with a comparison of CPM. The data of complications were extracted, screened by independent authors and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
RESULTS: The complications of CPM were high in comparison to LPM in terms of electrode dislodgement (56% vs 7% of cases, p-value < .0001), pocket site infection rate (16% vs 3.4%, p-value = 0.02), and a lead fracture rate (8% vs 0%, p-value = 0.04). LPMs had a statistically non-significant two-times high risk of pericardial effusion (8%) compared to CPMs (4%) with a p-value = 0.8.
CONCLUSION: LPMs appear to have a better safety profile than CPMs. There was a low pocket site and lead-related infections in LPM as compared to CPM. However, LPM can have twice the risk of pericardial effusion than CPMs, but this was not statistically significant.
Volume
10
Issue
4
First Page
328
Last Page
333
ISSN
2000-9666
Published In/Presented At
Sattar, Y., Ullah, W., Roomi, S., Rauf, H., Mukhtar, M., Ahmad, A., Ali, Z., Abedin, M. S., & Alraies, M. C. (2020). Complications of leadless vs conventional (lead) artificial pacemakers - a retrospective review. Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 10(4), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/20009666.2020.1786901
Disciplines
Medicine and Health Sciences
PubMedID
32850090
Department(s)
Fellows and Residents
Document Type
Article