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.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac implantable electronic devices' longevity: A novel modelling tool for estimation and comparison.PloS one · 2025Article
- Leadless Pacemaker Infection Risk in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Case Series and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and Safety in Remote Monitoring of Patients with Pacemakers Five Years after an Implant: The Poniente Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Review
- Article
- A Contactless Sensor for Pacemaker Pulse Detection: Design Hints and Performance Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.