ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock2010
Tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias and acute coronary syndromes.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sinus arrest in a patient with acute coronary syndrome due to a rare anatomical variation in the sinoatrial nodal artery.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- AI modeling photoplethysmography to electrocardiography useful for predicting cardiovascular disease.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Incidence and In-Hospital Outcomes of Bradycardia or Atrioventricular Conduction Disorder in Patients With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Inpatient Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Predictors of Readmission after the First Acute Coronary Syndrome and the Risk of Recurrent Cardiovascular Events-Seven Years of Patient Follow-Up.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Severe Bradycardia Prior to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Case Report.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2018Article
- Homogenization of Atrial Electrical Activities: Conceptual Restoration of Regional Electrophysiological Parameters to Deter Ischemia-Dependent Conflictogenic Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of bradyarrhythmias in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is 0.3% to 18%. It is caused by sinus node dysfunction (SND), high-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, or bundle branch blocks. SND presents as sinus bradycardia or sinus arrest. First-degree AV block occurs in 4% to 13% of patients with ACS and is caused by rhythm disturbances in the atrium, AV node, bundle of His, or the Tawara system. First- or second-degree AV block is seen very frequently within 24 h of the beginning of ACS; these arrhythmias are frequently transient and usually disappear after 72 h. Third-degree AV blocks are also frequently transient in patients with infero-posterior myocardial infarction (MI) and permanent in anterior MI patients. Left anterior fascicular block occurs in 5% of ACS; left posterior fascicular block is observed less frequently (incidence <0.5%). Complete bundle branch block is present in 10% to 15% of ACS patients; right bundle branch block is more common (2/3) than left bundle branch block (1/3). In patients with bradyarrhythmia, intravenous (IV) atropine (1-3 mg) is helpful in 70% to 80% of ACS patients and will lead to an increased heart rate. The need for pacemaker stimulation (PS) is different in patients with inferior MI (IMI) and anterior MI (AMI). Whereas bradyarrhythmias are frequently transient in patients with IMI and therefore do not need permanent PS, there is usually a need for permanent PS in patients with AMI. In these patients bradyarrhythmias are mainly caused by septal necrosis. In patients with ACS and ventricular arrhythmias (VTA) amiodarone is the drug of choice; this drug is highly effective even in patients with defibrillation-resistant out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. There is general agreement that defibrillation and advanced life support is essential and is the treatment of choice for patients with ventricular flutter/fibrillation. If defibrillation is not available in patients with cardiac arrest due to VTA, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is mandatory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.