Leadless pacemaker versus transvenous single-chamber pacemaker therapy: A propensity score-matched analysis

Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep;15(9):1387-1393. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.04.027. Epub 2018 Apr 28.

Abstract

Background: The recent introduction of leadless pacemakers (PMs) was aimed to eliminate transvenous lead- and pocket-related complications. While the initial results with the leadless PMs seem promising, the nonrandomized nature, limited implant experience of operators, and short follow-up period of these studies preclude a simple comparison to transvenous PMs.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to provide a balanced comparison of leadless and transvenous single-chamber PM therapies through a propensity score-matched analysis.

Methods: Leadless patients from 3 experienced leadless implant centers were propensity score-matched to VVI-R patients from a contemporary prospective multicenter transvenous PM registry. The primary outcome was device-related complications that required invasive intervention during mid-term follow-up. Separate analyses including and excluding PM advisory-related complications were performed.

Results: A total of 635 patients were match-eligible (leadless: n = 254; transvenous: n = 381), of whom 440 patients (median age 78 years; interquartile range 70-84 years; 61% men) were successfully matched (leadless: n = 220 vs transvenous: n = 220). The complication rate at 800 days of follow-up was 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0%-2.2%) in the leadless group vs 4.7% (95% CI 1.8%-7.6%) in the transvenous group when excluding PM advisory-related complications (P = .02). When including these PM advisory-related complications, the complication rate at 800 days increased to 10.9% (95% CI 4.8%-16.5%) in the leadless group vs 4.7% (95% CI 1.8%-7.6%) in the transvenous group (P = .063).

Conclusion: This study reveals favorable complication rates for leadless compared to transvenous single-chamber pacing therapy at mid-term follow-up in a propensity score-matched cohort. When including PM advisory-related complications, this advantage is no longer observed.

Keywords: Arrhythmia; Leadless pacemaker; Leadless pacing; Pacemakers; Pacing.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / physiopathology
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / therapy*
  • Catheterization, Central Venous / methods*
  • Electrocardiography
  • Equipment Design
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Pacemaker, Artificial*
  • Propensity Score*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome