ArticleHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2010
[Maintenance of AAI(R) mode at the time of generator replacement].
Article in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The tissue velocity imaging and strain rate imaging in the assessment of interatrial electromechanical conduction in patients with sick sinus syndrome before and after pacemaker implantation.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn isolated sinus node disease single lead atrial stimulation is recommended. However, an inherent risk includes emerging AV node disturbances with serious bradycardia in the follow-up. This possible scenario frequently results in the implantation of an additional ventricular lead. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this single-centre retrospective study the interval between 1982 and 2007 was analysed. During this period a total of 6,309 antibradycardia pacemakers were implanted for the first time. Ten percent (n=631) of these devices were single lead atrial pacemakers for treatment of the sick sinus syndrome (SSS). In these 26 years 136 pacemaker replacement operations were performed. During this procedure a thorough reevaluation of the stimulation mode was done.
resultsIn 80.6% (n=112) AAI(R) was continued, in 10.1% (n=14) the system was upgraded to DDD(R), and in 9.3% the mode was changed to VVI(R). There were no significant differences in the lifetime of the AAI(R) pacemakers up to the time of this operation: 7.9 vs 6.3 vs 7.0 years.
conclusionThe single lead atrial pacing mode in SSS is mostly safe also in the long term. A premature change of stimulation mode is rarely necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20730439What 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.