Abstract Introduction Leadless pacing is increasingly used in patients with contraindications to transvenous systems. However, a common presentation of life-threatening bradyarrhythmia is in the out-of-hours emergency setting. The perceived complexities of leadless implantation anecdotally inhibit their use as destination devices implanted in the acute setting. Our centre offers a 24-7 emergency pacing service, we examined our use of leadless pacemaker implantation for patients requiring out of hours emergency pacing at our centre from December 2021 to December 2023. Purpose The purpose of this study looking to examine the feasibility and safety of leadless pacing in out of hours emergency situations. Methods This is a single centre retrospective cohort study examining all patients (pts) undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation at 1 hospital. Out of hours (OOH) implantation was defined as being after 18:00 during the week and any time during the weekend. Clinical and procedural parameters were compared between in-hours and out of hours (OOH) implantation. Haemodynamic instability was defined as any patient requiring inotrope support. Results 118 leadless pacing systems were implanted between 0/1/12/2021 and 01/12/2023; 95 being performed in-hours and 23 OOH. Pacing indication was high-degree AV block in 20 pts (87%) in the OOH group, with frailty (8pts), dialysis (4pts) and infection (3pts) being listed as the most common reasons for selection of a leadless system in the OOH group. OOH pts had greater haemodynamic instability [in-hours: 3pts (3.2%) vs OOH: 4pts (17.4%)]. Procedural time (mean ± Standard deviation, mins) was similar between groups [52.4 (±3.6) in-hours vs 59.7(+/- 6.4) OOH; p= 0.33] as was fluoroscopy time (mins) [in-hours: 4.9 (+/- 1.0) vs OOH: 5.1(+/- 2.3) p=0.97] and radiation dose (cGy*cm²) [in-hours: 56.73 (+/- 9.87) vs OOH: 53.8(+/- 14.1), p=0.89]. 3 (3.1%) major complications occurred in the in-hours group [tamponade (2pts), infection (1pt)]. One pt in the OOH group had a significant post procedure access site bleed (4.3%), but no tamponade occurred in this group. Four pts (4.2%) died before discharge in the in-hours group, four patients (17.4%) died in the OOH group, reflecting their poor premorbid condition. Conclusions Leadless pacemakers can be safely implanted in the emergency, out of hours setting. In selected patients, this technology can offer an immediate destination therapy as an important alternative to placing a temporary system.