ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation2018
Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury and Inflammation after Permanent Pacemaker Implantation: The Lead Fixation Type Effect.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2018. 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.
- Case Report: Aveir implantation in an 8.7-year-old, 25-kg pediatric patient with mitochondrial disease via internal jugular vein.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical impact and predictors of periprocedural myocardial injury among patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Article
- Roles of MDA-LDL/OX-LDL/LOX-1 and TNF-α/TLR4/NF-κB Signaling Pathways in Myocardial Damage by Implantations of Cardiac Pacemakers in Elderly Patients.Current vascular pharmacology · 2024Article
- COVID-19 induced ventricular tachycardia storm unmasking a clinically silent cardiomyopathy: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2021Article
- Ulinastatin attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced cardiac dysfunction by inhibiting inflammation and regulating autophagy.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPermanent pacemaker implantation is accompanied by minor myocardial damage, indicated by elevated serum levels of cardiac biomarkers. Aim of this prospective study was to comparably investigate the lead fixation type effect on the extent of myocardial injury and inflammation following pacemaker implantation, and to assess the possible clinical implications.
methodsCardiac troponin I (cTnI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured at baseline, 6 and 24h after implantation in 101 patients, categorized into the active and passive lead fixation group. Patients were followed up for clinical adverse events or abnormal pacing parameters at 24h, 7 and 30 days post-procedure.
resultscTnI increased at 6h post-procedure (p<0.05) in 23.8% of patients, and returned to baseline after 24h. The passive group demonstrated significantly higher cTnI at 6h compared to the active group (p=0.006). CRP increased significantly at 6h, and maintained an upward trend after 24h (p<0.01) in both groups. The active group demonstrated significantly higher CRP at 6h compared to the passive group. We did not identify an association of positive biomarkers with adverse events.
conclusioncTnI and CRP can increase early after permanent pacemaker implantation, indicating mechanical myocardial injury and inflammation. The extent of these biomarkers elevation depends on the lead fixation type, and is not related to worse short-term prognosis.
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.