ReviewDer Internist2018
[Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneously implantable cardioverter defibrillators].
Review in Der Internist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although pacemakers and implantable defibrillators have become the standard treatment of bradycardic and tachycardic arrhythmias, long-term complications caused by the transvenously inserted pacing and defibrillation leads, such as electrode fracture, lead infection and tricuspid valve insufficiency are not uncommonly observed. Therefore, leadless pacemakers and purely subcutaneously implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been developed in recent years, which are implanted without transvenous electrodes with the aim to reduce long-term complications with these devices; however, currently available leadless pacemakers are limited to single chamber stimulation and S‑ICDs are limited to pure defibrillation without antibradycardic, antitachycardic pacing or cardiac resynchronization capabilities. Thus, these devices cannot yet be used as multichamber pacemakers or defibrillators even though in these circumstances a higher complication rate is to be expected due to the multiple number of transvenous leads. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge on leadless pacemakers and ICDs, discusses the limitations of these devices and provides an outlook into their future development.
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.