Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Removal of tine-based leadless pacemakers: insights from a large multicentre experience
- Retrospective cohort study
- multicentre
- 11 centres in Europe and the US
- consecutive patients
Removal mostly with a steerable sheath plus single-loop snare
Authors' conclusion
Removal of tine-based LPMs, typically after short- to mid-term device dwell times, was generally feasible and safe.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing tine-based leadless pacemaker removal, March 2016 to January 2024
- Participants
- 85 patients
- Outcome
- Safety and feasibility of removal (procedural success, complication rates)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Procedural success
Overall procedural success rate
96.5%
Removal failure (n = 3)
3.5%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Predictors of removal failure (n = 3, 3.5%)
| Comparison | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Longer device dwell time | 1.4 (1.1–2.4) | P = 0.008 | |
| 0.512Odds ratio (log scale) |
Indications for leadless pacemakers (LPM) removal
- Temporary use after transvenous lead extraction
- 23.5%
- Upgrade to biventricular pacing system
- 22.4%
- Upgrade to transvenous dual-chamber pacemaker
- 9.4%
- Increased pacing thresholds
- 21.2%
Device dwell time
- Median device dwell time
- 96 days (IQR 29-320 days)
Removal technique
- Steerable sheath with single-loop snare in the majority of cases
Safety
Procedure-related adverse events
- Procedure-related adverse events
- 5.9%
- Pericardial effusions
- 2
- Device embolization
- 3
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Removal of tine-based leadless pacemakers: insights from a large multicentre experience. Europace. Published 4 July 2026. doi:10.1093/europace/euag157
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it