ReviewNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2018
Are there increased periprocedural complications with the MRI-conditional Medtronic Revo SureScan Pacing System? : A meta-analysis.
Review in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2018. 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.
- Compatibility of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with orthopedic implants: manufacturer questionnaires.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2020Article
- Evolving Spinal Cord Stimulation Technologies and Clinical Implications in Chronic Pain Management.Current pain and headache reports · 2019Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional permanent pacemakers has increased significantly. In this meta-analysis, we examine the safety of MRI-conditional pacing systems in comparison with conventional systems.
methodsAn electronic search was performed using major databases, including studies that compared the outcomes of interest between patients receiving MRI-conditional pacemakers (MRI group) versus conventional pacemakers (control group).
resultsSix studies (5 retrospective and 1 prospective non-randomised) involving 2,118 adult patients were identified. The MRI-conditional pacemakers, deployed in 969 patients, were all from a single manufacturer (Medtronic Pacing System with 5086 leads). The rate of pacemaker lead dislodgement (atrial and ventricular) was significantly higher in the MRI group (3% vs. 1%, OR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26; 4.83), p = 0.008). The MRI group had a significantly higher rate of pericardial complications (2% vs. 1%, OR 4.23 (95% CI 1.18; 15.10), p = 0.03) and a numerically higher overall complication rate in comparison with the conventional group (6% vs. 3%, OR 2.02 (95% CI 0.88; 4.66), p = 0.10) but this was not statistically significant.
conclusionsIn this meta-analysis, the rates of pacemaker lead dislodgement and pericardial complications were significantly higher with the Medtronic MRI-conditional pacing system.
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.