Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Comparison of readmission outcomes and complications between leadless and traditional transvenous pacemakers in older adults: a nationwide readmission analysis of 49852 admission events
- Retrospective cohort study
- nationwide (National Readmissions Database)
- 1:1 high-dimensional propensity score matched (caliper 0.1 SD)
- multivariable logistic regression
Authors' conclusion
Nationally representative data indicate that LPM implantation is associated with fewer device-related complications compared to TV-VVI
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged ≥65 years undergoing LPM or TV-VVI implantation, US National Readmissions Database (NRD), 2016–202210,594 per group matched
- Participants
- 49,852 patients
- Exposure
- Leadless pacemaker vs single-chamber transvenous pacemaker
- LPMn = 10,594
- TV-VVIn = 10,594reference
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Device-related and implant-related complications
LPM vs TV-VVIAdjusted odds ratio (95% CI)P value
device-related complications; higher with TV-VVI
0.45(0.30–0.65)
P < 0.001device revision or replacement; higher with TV-VVI
0.20(0.11–0.36)
P < 0.001implant-related complications; higher with TV-VVI
0.58(0.34–0.97)
P = 0.040Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Readmission · 30 days
Readmission · 30 days
- Similar between LPM and TV-VVI
Mortality and prolonged length of stay
- No significant differences
Safety
Arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm, pericardial complications
- Crude rates higher with LPM; adjusted differences non-significant
Original publication
Comparison of readmission outcomes and complications between leadless and traditional transvenous pacemakers in older adults: a nationwide readmission analysis of 49852 admission events. Europace. Published 29 October 2025. doi:10.1093/europace/euaf268
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it