Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Sex differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: A propensity-matched analysis from the i-LEAPER registry
Main finding · LPM-related major complicationsResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 2.03 95% CI 0.70–5.84Authors' conclusion
In a real-world setting, we found differences in sex-related referral patterns for LPM implantation with an underrepresentation of women, although major complication rate and LPM performance were comparable between sexes. Female patients showed higher impedance values, which had no impact on overall device performance. Electrical parameters remained within normal limits in both groups during the entire follow-up.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation in the i-LEAPER registry738 after propensity matching
- Participants
- 1,179 patients
- Exposure
- Women vs men undergoing leadless pacemaker implantation
- Outcome
- Major complication rates
Methodological detailspropensity-matched (1:1, age and comorbidities), consecutive patients
- Propensity-matched (1:1, age and comorbidities)
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
LPM-related major complications · median follow-up 25 [IQR 24-39] months
Hazard ratio
2.03
95% CI 0.70–5.84
P = 0.190
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality · median follow-up 25 [IQR 24-39] monthsMatched cohort | 0.98 (0.40–2.42) | P = 0.960 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Pacing impedance · 24 months
P = 0.014
- Pacing impedance: higher in women at implant and during follow-up; within normal limits
Other leadless pacemaker (LPM) electrical performance
- Comparable between groups
Sex distribution of overall population
- Men
- 64.3%
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →