ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2013
The pathway to physician reimbursement for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): a history and brief synopsis.
Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Cardiovascular Procedure Rates in Patients With Supplementary vs Basic Insurance in Switzerland.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Eleven-year trends of inpatient pacemaker implantation in patients diagnosed with sick sinus syndrome.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2017Article
- Introduction: health policy II. A new era of heath policy in electrophysiology and cardiology.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), despite their proven effectiveness in large clinical trials for a wide range of patients with arrhythmia and heart failure, are frequent targets for criticism regarding cost-efficiency and alleged overuse. Newer indications, such as sinus node dysfunction for pacemakers and primary prevention for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, increased eligible patient population significantly. This lead to heightened scrutiny from payors and legislative agencies, such as prior authorization and mandatory registry participation. Despite the significant administrative burden, the efficiency of these measures to decrease abuse is not clear. In addition, professional societies, regulatory agencies, and payors may not always agree whether use of a device is appropriate for a given patient. The review focuses on past and current issues related to utilization of CIEDs, which lead to increased regulatory oversight, and the effort of professional societies, payors, and governmental agencies to improve access to these life-saving therapeutical modalities while maintaining a just and cost-efficient healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23242735What 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.