Impact of pre-existing conduction abnormalities on permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

Table 7 Comparison of the present systematic review with selected prior meta-analyses examining predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Ref.	Study design	Included studies/patients	Search period	OR for RBBB predicting PPI	REML random-effects analysis	Subgroup analysis by valve type	Subgroup analysis by study era	Meta-regression on publication year	Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis	Egger test for publication bias	Long-term pacing dependency synthesis	Summary of non-RBBB conduction abnormalities
Present study	Systematic review and meta-analysis	20/15515	2010-2026	4.52 (95%CI 2.64-7.74)	Yes	Yes (Figure 4; Supplementary Figure 3)	Yes (Supplementary Figure 6)	Yes (Supplementary Figure 7)	Yes (Supplementary Figure 2)	Yes (P = 0.907)	Yes (Table 6, 9 studies)	Yes (Table 5)
Mohammadi et al[5] (2025)	Systematic review and network meta-analysis	108/77538	Not reported	RR approx. 3.20	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Peng et al[2] (2025)	Systematic review and meta-analysis	Not reported separately	Systematic	Not computed	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Sultan et al[3] (2024)	Prospective subanalysis (Navitor IDE)	Prospective cohort	Prospective	Device-specific analysis	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No

OR: Odds ratio; RR: Relative risk; PPI: Permanent pacemaker implantation; RBBB: Right bundle branch block; REML: Restricted maximum likelihood.