ArticleExperimental and clinical cardiology2013
Percutaneous coronary intervention delays pacemaker implantation in coronary artery disease patients with established bradyarrhythmias.
Article in Experimental and clinical cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Resolution of Symptomatic Intermittent Sinoatrial Exit Block Associated With Unstable Angina Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Cardiology research · 2022Article
- Prevalence and characterization of coronary artery disease in patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias requiring pacemaker implantation.Indian heart journal · 2016Observational
- Clinical and symptomatological reflections: the fascial system.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPacemakers have long been used to assist the heart under pathological conditions, and they are the first choice in the treatment of systematic bradyarrhythmias. However, the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease as well as bradyarrhythmias remains unknown.
methodsIn the present study, 42 patients with chest pain and/or abnormal stress test results were surveyed. Before coronary angiography, patients underwent complete examination, including a 24 h dynamic electrocardiogram, which was used to diagnose bradyarrhythmias that were not suitable for pacemaker implantation due to a lack of arrhythmia-related symptoms. All patients underwent PCI but did not undergo pacemaker implantation. Forty-one patients with chest pain and/or abnormal stress test results, as well as symptom-free bradyarrhythmias, were selected as the control group. All of the patients in the control group were committed to treatments without PCI.
resultsDuring a mean (±SD) of 3.3±0.5 years of follow-up (range 2.5 to 4.5 years), 24 of 42 patients who received PCI underwent pacemaker implantation for arrhythmia-related symptoms, eight were shown by Holter monitoring to have worsened but still exhibited no symptoms, and the remainder did not show any changes according to the examinations performed. In the control group, 31 patients underwent pacemaker implantation for arrhythmia-related symptoms, eight were shown by Holter monitoring to have worsened but still exhibited no symptoms, and two did not show any changes according to the examinations performed. Nevertheless, the rates of pacemaker implantation each year (from the first to the third year) between the two groups were 7.1% versus 39.0% (P=0.001); 33.3% versus 63.4% (P=0.006); and 57.1% versus 75.6%, (P=0.075), respectively.
conclusionsThe present study found that PCI delayed the demand for pacemaker implantation among coronary artery disease patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24294031PMC3716496W1627530241What 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.