Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026
Comparison of Outcomes of Leadless Versus Transvenous Pacemakers Following Tricuspid Valve Surgery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shimoda Tomonari M, Miyamoto Yoshihisa, Ueyama Hiroki A, Itagaki Shinobu, Kaneko Tsuyoshi, Gotanda Hiroshi, Inoue Kosuke, Fukuhara Shinichi, Ailawadi Gorav, Takayama Hiroo, Kuno Toshiki, Tsugawa Yusuke
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transvenous pacemaker implantation after tricuspid valve surgery may cause adverse outcomes due to lead-valve interactions. Although leadless pacemakers may mitigate these risks, empirical data remain limited.
METHODS: We compared outcomes of leadless versus transvenous pacemakers following tricuspid surgery using a target trial emulation framework. We analyzed Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent tricuspid valve surgery and received a pacemaker during the index admission between 2017 and 2021, using propensity score matching weight analysis to control for confounders. Primary outcomes were in-hospital death and 2-year heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 2-year death.
RESULTS: We included 185 and 1336 patients in the leadless and transvenous groups, respectively. Use of leadless pacemakers increased from 6.3% in 2017 to 17.5% in 2021. Leadless pacemaker recipients more often underwent tricuspid valve replacement (29.2% versus 8.5%) while concomitant mitral surgery was less common (69.2% versus 86.8%). After adjustment, we found no evidence that in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.65-5.13] for leadless) and 2-year heart failure hospitalizations (subdistribution hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60-1.30] for leadless) differed between the 2 groups. We also found no evidence that 2-year death (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.57] for leadless) differed between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were detected between leadless versus transvenous pacemaker implantations after tricuspid valve surgery. However, CIs were wide, and a clinically meaningful difference in either direction cannot be excluded. The study may therefore be underpowered, and the absence of echocardiographic data limits assessment of tricuspid regurgitation, warranting prospective studies.
METHODS: We compared outcomes of leadless versus transvenous pacemakers following tricuspid surgery using a target trial emulation framework. We analyzed Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent tricuspid valve surgery and received a pacemaker during the index admission between 2017 and 2021, using propensity score matching weight analysis to control for confounders. Primary outcomes were in-hospital death and 2-year heart failure hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 2-year death.
RESULTS: We included 185 and 1336 patients in the leadless and transvenous groups, respectively. Use of leadless pacemakers increased from 6.3% in 2017 to 17.5% in 2021. Leadless pacemaker recipients more often underwent tricuspid valve replacement (29.2% versus 8.5%) while concomitant mitral surgery was less common (69.2% versus 86.8%). After adjustment, we found no evidence that in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.65-5.13] for leadless) and 2-year heart failure hospitalizations (subdistribution hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60-1.30] for leadless) differed between the 2 groups. We also found no evidence that 2-year death (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.57] for leadless) differed between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were detected between leadless versus transvenous pacemaker implantations after tricuspid valve surgery. However, CIs were wide, and a clinically meaningful difference in either direction cannot be excluded. The study may therefore be underpowered, and the absence of echocardiographic data limits assessment of tricuspid regurgitation, warranting prospective studies.