Abstract:Introduction Leadless pacemaker (LP) is a novel technology designed to reduce lead-related, including pocket infections, associated with traditional pacemakers. LP can be used in patients with high-degree AV block, sinus node dysfunction, and bradycardia with syncope. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the long-term safety of intra-cardiac leadless pacemakers compared with traditional pacemakers. Methods Our protocol was registered in advance on PROSPERO. Studies were eligible if they compared complications, revision, cardiac perforation, infections, and all-cause mortality between patients who received leadless pacemakers versus traditional pacemakers. The systematic search was conducted in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus) without restriction. The random-effect model was implemented to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Also, the Mantel-Haenszel method, Paule-Mandel estimator for tau^2, Q-Profile method for the confidence interval of tau^2 and tau, and Hartung-Knapp adjustment for random effects model methods were used for the prediction of data extracted directly from the curves. ROBINS-I tool was used for the risk of bias assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach. Results Of 6450 studies screened, we identified 21 observational studies of Nanostim and Micra leadless pacemakers. The pooled incidence of complications of leadless versus traditional pacemakers at 1, 6, 12-24 months show the odds are clinically and statistically different (OR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.42–1.02; OR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22–0.86; OR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.32–0.53 respectively). The pooled incidence of infection rate at 6, 12-24 months is lower in patients with LP (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.31–0.44; OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.00–97.31). The studies comparing all-cause mortality during 6, 12-24 months in leadless versus traditional pacemakers did not show statistically significant differences in these outcomes (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.88–1.81; OR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.25–2.92 respectively. Conclusion Our results show that complications and infections occur less frequently in patients with leadless pacemakers than in patients with conventional pacemakers with no difference in all-cause mortality. However, there is a need for high-quality randomized clinical trials and propensity score-matched studies focusing on this clinically relevant question.Complication Forest plotsInfection Forest plots

Comparison of different processing methods of generator pocket in pacemaker replacement

Comparison between different suture processes with pocket notch on pacemaker implantation

Time interval of reimplantation with post lead extraction in patients with isolated pacemaker pocket in-fection

Effectiveness of pocket vacuum suction drainage therapy in patients with negative blood-cultured pocket infection after pacemaker implantation

Cardiac Pacemaker Survey-Twenty Hospitals Pacemaker Implantation Registry in China

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Recovery Between Two Open Heart Surgeries:Minimally Invasive Right Subaxillary Vertical Thoracomy and Traditional Median Sternotomy

Comparison of efficacy and safety of temporary pacing using active-fixation rersus traditional leads after extraction of infected leads

Analysis of complications after pacemaker implantation 82 cases

Clinical assessment of pacemaker replacement

Systematic Review of Leadless Pacemaker

Detection of bacteria in pocket of permanent pacemaker and analysis of influencing factors

Effect of Antibiotic Solution Flushing on Prevention of Pacemaker Pocket Infection

Analysis on clinical materials in patients with post-operation infection after implantation of permanent pacemaker

An unexpected cause of a swollen pacemaker pocket: a case report

The Effect of Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Drug on Pocket Hemorrhage after Pacemaker Implantation

The Clinical Observation of Auto AV Search Algorithm in Dual Chamber Pacemaker.

Perioperative complications after pacemaker implantation: higher complication rates with subclavian vein puncture than with cephalic vein cutdown

The effect of cardiovascular implantable electronic device(CIED)re-implantion time after the pacing leads be extractedby superior vena cava and inferior vena cava approaches because of CIED infection

Intracardiac leadless pacemaker: long term safety over traditional pacemakers. a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the clinical effects between catheter exchange methods in geriatric patients with tunneled cuffed hemodialysis catheters

Abstract 18762: Pacemaker Pocket Erosion - An Undesired Complication of Leuprolide Therapy