Leadless Pacemaker vs. Transvenous Pacemaker in End Stage Kidney Disease: Insights from the Nationwide Readmission Database.

Abstract

Background: Leadless pacemakers offer a safe and effective alternative pacing strategy. However, limited data are available for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD), a population of significant relevance. Methods: Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we extracted data from all adult patients with ESRD who underwent traditional transvenous or leadless pacemaker implantation between 2016 and 2021. We compared in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission rates, complication rates, and healthcare resource utilization between the two cohorts. Results: A total of 6384 (81.2%) patients were included in the transvenous pacemaker cohort, and 1481(18.8%) patients were included in the leadless pacemaker cohort. In patients with ESRD, leadless pacemaker implantation was linked to higher in-hospital complications when compared to transvenous pacemakers. These included the need for blood transfusion (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.32-2.60, p < 0.01), vascular complications (aOR 3.6, CI 1.40-9.26, p = 0.01), and cardiac complications (aOR 4.12, CI 1.70-9.98, p < 0.01). However, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates. The median length of stay was longer for leadless pacemaker implantation than transvenous pacemaker implantation (5 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.01). The total hospitalization charges were also higher ($139,826 vs. $93,919, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Although previous studies have demonstrated lower long-term complication rates with leadless pacemakers than transvenous pacemakers, our analysis shows a higher risk of short-term in-hospital complications in ESRD patients, though no differences in in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmissions.