ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Evolution of leadless pacemaker technology.
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and clinical outcomes of bone-marrow mononuclear cell therapy in chronic heart failure: a systemic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Multicenter study on electrical performance and predictive indicators in aveir VR pacemaker recipients.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Leadless atrial versus transvenous pacing for sinus node dysfunction: 1-year outcomes from the leadless ARRIVE real-world study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac pacemakers have revolutionized the management of heart rhythm disorders since their introduction in the mid-20th century. They have played a crucial role in the management of several clinical conditions, from symptomatic bradyarrhythmia to electrical and/or mechanical dyssynchrony. Conventional cardiac pacemakers have significantly evolved over the last several decades. However, a critical limitation has been the presence of a generator pocket and endovascular leads connecting the pulse generator to cardiac tissue. While leads are essential to the pacemaker system by transmitting electrical impulses, they impose several significant risks that include venous thrombosis, device-associated endocarditis, and lead malfunction (mainly due to lead fracture, insulation failure, and macro- or micro-dislodgement), whereas the generator pocket can be the origin of a systemic device infection. The development of leadless pacemakers inaugurated a new era in cardiac pacing, eliminating many of the risks associated with traditional transvenous pacemakers. Leadless pacemakers are small, self-contained devices, which are fundamentally able to pace the heart without the need for a pocket and endovascular leads.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.