In a new publication from Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications; DOI https:/
Leadless pacemakers, which are increasingly used in clinical practice, have several advantages compared with traditional pacemakers in avoiding pocket- and lead-related complications. However, the clinical effect of leadless pacemakers remains controversial.
The authors meta-analysis of the material appears to favour leadless pacemakers over traditional pacemakers with regard to major complications. This indicates that leadless pacemakers have potential for future clinical applications. However, the application of a leadless pacemaker is still controversial, and more randomized controlled studies are warranted to explore safety and practicality.
###
Citation information: A Meta-analysis of Major Complications between Traditional Pacemakers and Leadless Pacemakers, Diyu Cui, Yimeng Liao, Jianlin Du, Yunqing Chen, Cardiovasc. Innov. App., 2020, https:/
Keywords: Leadless pacemaker; traditional pacemaker; treatment effect; complication; meta-analysis
CVIA is available on the IngentaConnect platform and at Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications. Submissions may be made using ScholarOne Manuscripts. There are no author submission or article processing fees. CVIA is indexed in the EMBASE, ESCI, OCLC, Primo Central (Ex Libris), Sherpa Romeo, NISC (National Information Services Corporation), DOAJ and Index Copernicus Databases. Follow CVIA on Twitter @CVIA_Journal; or Facebook.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
