ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2012
Assessment of ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program: insights into physiological pacing.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowing About Device Algorithms to Understand the Rhythm and Role of Managed Ventricular Pacing.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcessive ventricular pacing is known to be detrimental. The purpose of this study was to assess ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program in order to decrease unnecessary pacing.
methodThis cross-sectional single-center study performed in a university hospital assessed 80 consecutive patients attending for a cardiac electronic device (pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator) check. Forty percent of ventricular pacing was set as the cutoff level beyond which pacing was considered excessive.
resultsThree patients were excluded. Forty-six (59.7%) patients (group 1) had more than 40% ventricular pacing and 31 (40.3%) patients (group 2) showed ventricular pacing less than 41%. In group 1, corrective action was successful in 27 (58.7%) patients, but 19 (41.3%) continued to have ventricular pacing over 40% and were discussed accordingly. An improvement program was established at the institution in order to decrease unnecessary ventricular pacing.
conclusionUnnecessary ventricular pacing was encountered in many of the patients in this study, corrective actions were performed, and an institutional improvement project was set up as a consequence.
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.