AbstractAimsPermanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) still limits the expansion of indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Comparison between different systems remains scarce. We aimed to determine the impact of the device type used on post-TAVI PPI.Methods and resultsA systematic literature review was performed to identify studies reporting the use of balloon-expandable valve (BEV), self-expandable valve (SEV), and mechanically expandable valve (MEV) and post-TAVI PPI. A network meta-analysis was used to compare TAVI mechanisms (Analysis A) and transcatheter heart valves (Analysis B) with respect to post-TAVI PPI. Analysis A included 40 181 patients with a pooled PPI rate of 19.2% in BEV, 24.7% in SEV, and 34.8% in MEV. Balloon-expandable valve showed lower risk compared to either SEV or MEV and SEV demonstrated lower risk for PPI than MEV. Implantation of BEV was associated with 39% and 62% lower PPI rate with respect to SEV and MEV. Implantation of SEV was associated with 38% lower PPI rate with respect to MEV. Analysis B included 36.143 patients with the lowest pooled PPI rate of 9.6% for Acurate Neo or others, and the highest pooled PPI rate of 34.3% for Lotus. CoreValve, Evolut Portico, and Lotus influenced significantly PPI rate, while Sapien group did not.ConclusionImplantation of BEV and also SEV were associated with lower post-TAVI PPI rate, while MEV were associated with higher post-TAVI PPI. Patient tailored-approach including devices characteristics may help to reduce post-TAVI PPI and to allow TAVI to take the leap towards extension of use in younger patients.Prospero numberCRD42021238671.