ArticleHerz2019
Pacemaker reprogramming rarely needed after device replacement.
Article in Herz, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost outpatient follow-ups after pacemaker implantation do not involve changes in the device settings. Moreover, the need for pacemaker reprogramming declines with time after implantation. Currently, data on the need for changes in pacemaker set-up after replacement owing to battery depletion are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of pacemaker reprogramming in this patient group.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed using the files of 217 patients who had undergone pacemaker replacement between 2002 and 2005. The data of 1,407 outpatient follow-up visits between 2002 and 2015 were analyzed. Scheduled and unscheduled visits were marked as visits with "action" or visits "without action", depending on whether pacemaker programming was or was not performed, respectively.
resultsPacemaker programming was performed in only 53 (4%) of the 1,234 scheduled visits and in 44 (25%) of 173 unscheduled visits. Thus, only 97 (7%) of 1,407 visits involved changes in device settings. Of these visits, 446 occurred in the first year after device replacement. The rate of unscheduled visits in the first year was higher (17%) than during the overall period (12%), but the rate of visits involving action was the same: 6% (26 of 446, first year) compared with 7% (97 of 1,407).
conclusionThe vast majority of outpatient visits after pacemaker replacement do not involve subsequent device reprogramming during follow-up. This suggests the potential benefit of remote follow-up for these patients.
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.