Abstract
IntroductionThe long‐term performance of leadless pacemaker (LPM) has not been well evaluated.MethodsBetween September 2017 and January 2021, 929 consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker implantation were grouped according to the types of pacemakers: LPM (LPM group, n = 368) and conventional pacemaker (PM group, n = 561).ResultsThe median follow‐up duration was 1.7 years (interquartile range 0.8–2.6 years). Hospitalization rate for heart failure in the LPM group was 9.3%, 15.6%, and 21.6% at 1, 2, 3 years, respectively. The LPM group had a significantly higher adjusted heart failure hospitalization risk than the PM group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–2.64, p = .01]. More patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by sinus node dysfunction (SND) in the LPM group (n = 150) were admitted to the hospital for heart failure compared to those in the PM group (n = 219) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 1.04–3.90, p = .03), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two groups in the patients with bradycardia caused by atrial fibrillation (LPM group, n = 71; PM group, n = 18) or atrioventricular block (LPM group, n = 147; PM group, n = 324).ConclusionsPatients who received LPM implantation had greater hospitalization risk for heart failure, compared to those who received conventional pacemaker implantation. The increased risk was mainly attributed to patients with SND.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
