ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2017
Should physicians instead of industry representatives be the main actor of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up? (Super Follow-up).
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing Complications in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Guideline to Prevention of CIED Infection.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Article
- Who are the main actors of cardiac device follow-up? Analysis of the super follow-up study.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2017Article
- Author`s Reply.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2017Article
- Differences in pacemaker programming between electrophysiology specialists and other physicians.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study sought to research the adequacy of the follow-up and optimization of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) performed by industry representatives.
methodsA total of 403 consecutive patients (35% females; median age, 67 years; age range 18-97 years) with either pacemakers (n=246), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), (n=117) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) (n=40) applied to our hospital's outpatient pacemaker clinic for follow-up. These patients had been followed up by industry representatives alone until September 2013 and then by a cardiologist who is dealing with cardiac electrophysiology and has a knowledge of CIED follow-up.
resultsIt was ascertained that 117 (47.6%) of 246 patients with pacemakers had a programming error. Forty-three (36.8%) of 117 patients were symptomatic, and after reprogramming, all symptoms diminished partially or completely during the follow-up. Moreover, 30 (25.6%) of 117 patients with ICDs had a programming error. Furthermore, 6 (15%) of 40 patients with CRT-Ds had a programming error. To conclude, when all patients with CIEDs were assessed together, it was ascertained that 153 (38%) of 403 patients had programming errors.
conclusionThe prevalence of inappropriate programming of CIEDs by industry representatives was quite higher than expected. Therefore, our study strongly demonstrates that CIED follow-up should not be allowed to be performed entirely by manufacturers' representatives alone.
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.