Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26612882›Full record

Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2016

Safety and efficiency of ventricular pacing prevention with an AAI-DDD changeover mode in patients with sinus node disease or atrioventricular block: impact on battery longevity-a sub-study of the ANSWER trial.

Martin Stockburger, Pascal Defaye, Serge Boveda, Branislav Stancak, Arnaud Lazarus, Johann Sipötz, Stefano Nardi, Mara Rolando, Javier Moreno

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.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 · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Martin StockburgerDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany Department of Cardiology, Havelland Kliniken Nauen, Ketziner Strasse 21, 14641 Nauen, Germany martin.stockburger@charite.de.
Pascal DefayeArrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
Serge BovedaArrhythmia Unit, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
Branislav StancakArrhythmia Department, Hospital of Eastern Slovakia, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Kosice, Slovakia.
Arnaud LazarusInParys, A. Paré Private Hospital, Neuilly sur Seine, France.
Johann SipötzHanusch Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria.
Stefano NardiAzienda Ospedaliera S. Maria, Terni, Italy.
Mara RolandoSorin Group International SA, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Javier MorenoArrhythmia Department, Cardiovascular Institute, San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain Arrhythmia Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis ANSWER (EvaluAtioN of the SafeR mode in patients With a dual chambER pacemaker indication) sub-study assesses safety and effectiveness of SafeR™ and the impact of ventricular pacing (VP) prevention on anticipated device longevity and replacement rate. METHODS AND

resultsPatients implanted for atrioventricular block (AVB, n = 310) or sinus node dysfunction (SND, n = 336) were randomly assigned to SafeR (n = 314) or DDD (n = 318) and followed for 36 months. Safety, median VP, estimated device longevity (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]), and anticipated replacement rates were analysed by pacing mode and implant indication. No difference in mortality, syncope, or mode intolerance was observed between randomization groups regardless of the indication. Ventricular pacing on SafeR vs. DDD was 11.5 vs. 93.6% in the overall population (P < 0.001), 89.2 vs. 83.8% in permanent AVB (P = 0.944), 53.5 vs. 98.2% in intermittent AVB (P < 0.001), and 2.2 vs. 84.7% in SND (P < 0.001). Anticipated median device longevity increased on SafeR by 14 [Q1 10; Q3 17] months [10; 17] (P < 0.001) in the overall population, 9 months [-5; 22] (P = 0.193) in permanent AVB, 14 months [8; 19] (P < 0.001) in intermittent AVB, and 14 months [9; 19] (P < 0.001) in SND. In intermittent AVB and SND, prolonged estimated battery longevity translated into the prevention of one anticipated replacement in at least 23% of patients.

conclusionSafeR was effective in reducing VP in intermittent AVB and in SND. No effect was observed in permanent AVB. No safety issue was observed. Ventricular pacing reduction by SafeR translated into relevant estimated prolongation of device longevity and anticipated reduction of required replacements.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAtrioventricular BlockCardiac Pacing, ArtificialElectric Power SuppliesEquipment DesignEuropeFemaleHeart VentriclesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPacemaker, ArtificialProspective StudiesSick Sinus SyndromeSingle-Blind MethodAtrioventricular blockBattery impedanceDevice longevityPacemaker mode selectionPacing preventionReplacementSafeRSinus node dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID26612882
PMCPMC5841592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.