Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955890›Full record

Observational studyEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2019

Active periodic electrograms in remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients: the PREMS study.

Arnaud Lazarus, Benoit Guy-Moyat, Pierre Mondoly, Frédéric Pons, Carlo Quaglia, Jean-Philippe Elkaim, Sandrine Bayle, Frédéric Victor

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Arnaud LazarusRhythmology Unit, Clinique Ambroise Paré, 25-27 boulevard Victor Hugo, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France.
Benoit Guy-MoyatCardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges, 2 avenue Martin Luther King, Limoges, France.
Pierre MondolyCardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Rangueil, 1 avenue du Pr Jean Poulhès, Toulouse, France.
Frédéric PonsCardiology Unit, Hôpital d'Instruction des Armées Saint-Anne, 2 boulevard Sainte-Anne, Toulon, France.
Carlo QuagliaCardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Roanne, 28 rue de Charlieu, Roanne, France.
Jean-Philippe ElkaimCardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Douarnenez, 85 rue Laennec, Douarnenez, France.
Sandrine BayleCardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Louis Pasteur, 4 rue Claude Bernard, Le Coudray, France.
Frédéric VictorCardiology Unit, Polyclinique Saint-Laurent, 320 avenue Général George S. Patton, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsRemote monitoring (RM) is considered as a standard of care for pacemaker recipients. Remote monitoring systems provide calendar-based intracardiac electrogram recordings (IEGM) only with the current pacemaker settings (passive IEGM). PREMS (Pacemaker Remote Electrogram Monitoring Study), an observational, multicentre trial, prospectively evaluated the clinical value of an active IEGM (aIEGM), including three 10-s sections (passive IEGM, encouraged sensing, and encouraged pacing), compared to other RM data and to its passive IEGM section. Secondary objectives included the added value of the aIEGM to fully assess the sensing and pacing functions of each lead. METHODS AND

resultsPatients were enrolled within 3 months after pacemaker implantation and followed until the first transmitted aIEGM, which was analysed together with all other RM data. In total, 567 patients were enrolled (79 ± 9 years, 62% men, 19% single-chamber, and 81% dual-chamber pacemakers). Of 547 aIEGMs transmitted in 547 patients, 161 [29.4%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 25.6-33.3%] indicated at least one anomaly non-detectable with certainty-or at all-on other RM data, including atrial arrhythmia, extrasystoles, undersensing, oversensing, and loss of capture. In 21.7% of cases the detected events deserved a corrective action. The sensing and pacing function of each lead could be fully assessed in 77.3% of aIEGM (95% CI 72.6-82.0%) vs. 15.5% (95% CI 11.4-19.6%) when considering only the passive IEGM section (P < 0.001).

conclusionAn active IEGM improves the clinical value of remote pacemaker follow-up. Furthermore, compared to a passive IEGM, the aIEGM increases the capability to fully assess remotely the sensing and pacing functions.

Indexed as

Cardiac Pacing, ArtificialElectrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacPacemaker, ArtificialRemote Sensing TechnologyTelemedicineAction PotentialsAgedAged, 80 and overArrhythmias, CardiacFemaleFranceHeart RateHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29955890
PMCPMC6321961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.