Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23419656›Full record

ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2013

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker reprogramming: potential consequences for remote follow-up.

Erik O Udo, Norbert M van Hemel, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff, Mike J Barrett, Jaap H Ruiter, Pieter A Doevendans, Karel G M Moons

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. State of the art: leadless ventricular pacing : A national expert consensus of the Austrian Society of Cardiology.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Erik O UdoDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands. e.o.udo@umcutrecht.nl
Norbert M van Hemel
Nicolaas P A Zuithoff
Mike J Barrett
Jaap H Ruiter
Pieter A Doevendans
Karel G M Moons
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLHeidelberg University · DEMedisch Centrum Alkmaar · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsRemote follow-up (FU) enables to cope with the expanding number of pacemaker (PM) FU. Although remote FU offers comparable monitoring options to in-office FU, reprogramming of device settings is not available, thereby imposing a potentially important restriction to the applicability of remote FU.  The aim of this study was to assess in a large cohort of bradycardia PM recipients, the incidence of PM reprogramming during long-term FU and its predictors, to judge the possibilities for remote FU. METHODS AND

resultsBetween 2003 and 2010 all in-office FU of 1517 bradycardia PM recipients included in the FOLLOWPACE study were recorded. Only 24.5% of all 13 258 recorded FU visits >3 months after implantation were visits-with-reprogramming (VWRs), occurring in 1158 patients (79%). Fifty percent of patients were free of reprogramming at 9 months, and 29% at 24 months. Using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, the following patient characteristics were predictive for frequent PM reprogramming, defined as >3 VWRs during 3 year FU: age, a history of atrial arrhythmias, PM complication <3 months after implantation, congestive heart failure, PM indication, and lead fixation method. This model had a receiver operating characteristic area of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.71).

conclusionThis study observed a low proportion of VWR (∼25%) during a mean FU of 5.3 years; however, those patients at high risk for PM reprogramming cannot easily be predicted. The vast majority of patients (>80%) do not need frequent reprogramming, suggesting a potential benefit of using remote FU to reduce the number of unnecessary in-office visits.

Indexed as

Cardiac Pacing, ArtificialPacemaker, ArtificialTelemetryAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBradycardiaEquipment DesignEquipment FailureFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLogistic ModelsMaleMultivariate AnalysisNetherlandsPacemakerRemote follow-upReprogramming

Identifiers

PMID23419656
OpenAlexW2079777451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.