ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2015
Management of atrial fibrillation in bradyarrhythmias.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk factors of pacing dependence and cardiac dysfunction in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Impact of the Pattern of Atrial Fibrillation on Stroke Risk and Mortality.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2021Review
- What do we do about atrial high rate episodes?European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2020Article
- Continuous monitoring of sleep-disordered breathing with pacemakers: Indexes for risk stratification of atrial fibrillation and risk of stroke.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- Photoplethysmography based atrial fibrillation detection: a review.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Review
- Next-generation pacemakers: from small devices to biological pacemakers.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2018Review
- Management of atrial high-rate episodes detected by cardiac implanted electronic devices.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sinus node disease (SND), a common indication to implant a pacemaker, is frequently associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), either at implantation (paroxysmal AF) or during follow-up, which often evolves to persistent or permanent AF. Pacemakers with an atrial lead allow continuous monitoring of the atrial rhythm and enable detection of the burden of AF. Asymptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias, being associated with increased risk of stroke, have important prognostic implications, and their detection could guide decision-making about antithrombotic prophylaxis. Pacing mode and pacing algorithms can influence the occurrence of AF and atrial tachyarrhythmias. In DDD/DDDR pacing mode, reduction of unnecessary right ventricular pacing positively affects the occurrence and evolution of AF, but patients with a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias maintain an increased risk of arrhythmic events. In the MINERVA study, the use of algorithms that act in the atrium for preventive pacing and atrial antitachycardia pacing while minimizing right ventricular pacing was beneficial in patients with SND and previous atrial tachyarrhythmias, and was associated with a significant reduction in evolution to permanent AF. New information available on therapies delivered at the atrial level by implanted devices suggests clinical advantages that could improve current guidelines for the management of AF and atrial tachyarrhythmias.
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.