ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Leadless atrial versus transvenous pacing for sinus node dysfunction: 1-year outcomes from the leadless ARRIVE real-world study.
Article in 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsLeadless pacing was developed to avoid complications inherent to transvenous (TV) pacemakers. Among patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) without atrioventricular block (AVB), TV systems remain standard therapy. Real-world data have shown favourable safety profiles for leadless vs. TV pacemakers. This study aimed to compare 30-day complications and 1-year outcomes-including complications, device-reinterventions, and all-cause mortality-between AVEIR AR leadless pacemakers (LP) and dual-chamber (DCTV) or right-atrial (RATV) TV pacemakers.
methodsMedicare fee-for-service claims were analysed to identify patients undergoing de novo AVEIR AR LP or TV pacemaker implantation from January 2024 to March 2025, with ≥1 year of prior and ≥30 days of post-implant continuous enrolment. The DCTV cohort included patients with SND without permanent atrial fibrillation or AVB; the RATV and LP cohorts included all respective recipients. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year complications, device-reinterventions, and mortality. Comparisons were adjusted using propensity score derived overlap weights.
resultsA total of 428 AVEIR AR, 39 881 DCTV, and 389 RATV patients were included. Thirty-day complications were lower with AVEIR AR compared with DCTV (adjusted 6.7% vs. 9.4%; OR = 0.7) and similar to RATV (6.9% vs. 6.7%). At 1 year, overall complications remained lower in AVEIR AR than DCTV (3.6% vs. 8.5%; HR = 0.4) and RATV (3.3% vs. 7.5%; HR = 0.4) cohorts. Device-related complications were reduced vs. DCTV, and reinterventions were reduced vs. both DCTV and RATV. Mortality was comparable across all groups.
conclusionAVEIR AR was associated with fewer long-term complications and reinterventions compared with DCTV and RATV, while 1-year mortality remained similar.
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.