Efficacy and safety of leadless pacemaker: A systematic review, pooled analysis and meta-analysis
Daniel N. Darlington, Philip Brown, Vanessa Novais de Carvalho, Hayley Bourne, Joseph Mayer, Nathan Jones, Vincent Walker, Shoaib Siddiqui, Ashish Patwala, Chun Shing Kwok
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers have been designed as an alternative to transvenous systems which avoid some of the complications associated with transvenous devices. We aim to perform a systematic review of the literature to report the safety and efficacy findings of leadless pacemakers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies reporting the safety, efficacy and outcomes of patients implanted with a leadless pacemaker. The pooled rate of adverse events was determined and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to compare rates of adverse outcomes for leadless compared to transvenous pacemakers. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included with 2496 patients implanted with a leadless pacemaker and success rates range between 95.5 and 100%. The device or procedure related death rate was 0.3% while any complication and pericardial tamponade occurred in 3.1% and 1.4% of patients, respectively. Other complications such as pericardial effusion, device dislodgement, device revision, device malfunction, access site complications and infection occurred in less than 1% of patients. Meta-analysis of four studies suggests that there was no difference in hematoma (RR 0.67 95%CI 0.21-2.18, 3 studies), pericardial effusion (RR 0.59 95%CI 0.15-2.25, 3 studies), device dislocation (RR 0.33 95%CI 0.06-1.74, 3 studies), any complication (RR 0.44 95%CI 0.17-1.09, 4 studies) and death (RR 0.45 95%CI 0.15-1.35, 2 studies) comparing patients who received leadless and transvenous pacemakers. CONCLUSION: Leadless pacemakers are safe and effective for patients who have an indication for single chamber ventricular pacing and the findings appear to be comparable to transvenous pacemakers.