ArticleCardiology journal2019
Association of selected factors with long-term prognosis and mortality after dual-chamber pacemaker implant.
Article in Cardiology journal, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of complications and mortality among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation in resource-limited settings: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Long-Term, Single-Centre Observation of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Echocardiographic Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy following Pacemaker Implantation.Cardiology research and practice · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDual-chamber (DDD) pacing is the most widely utilised pacing modality in many parts of the world. The present study aimed to evaluate life expectancy of DDD pacemaker patients in comparison to the age- and sex-matched general population, assess changes in baseline characteristics over three decades of the inclusion period and determine the association between selected variables and patient survival.
methodsThis longitudinal study of consecutive de novo DDD pacemaker implantations performed between 1984 and 2014, with all-cause mortality until 2016 as the endpoint, was conducted at a singlecenter university hospital.
resultsUnder assessment were 3928 patients with a total of 30,087 patient-years of survival time. Compared to the general population, the observed survival was significantly inferior until 12 years post DDD pacemaker implant (HR = 1.499, p < 0.001), whereas after 12 years of follow-up the observed survival was significantly superior (HR = 0.555, p < 0.001). A comparison of patient baseline characteristics over three decades revealed the following significant changes: more elderly patients, more female patients, less patients with atrioventricular block, more patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) and fewer patients with an apical right ventricular (RV) lead position in the later decades. In multivariate analysis male sex and higher age were the only variables significantly associated with shorter survival time. Indication for pacing, history of pre-implant AF/AFL, RV lead position and device infection were not associated with survival.
conclusionsIn the very-long-term follow-up of DDD pacemaker patients, the parameters associated with survival were sex and baseline age at first implantation.
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.