ArticleHerz2020
Individual programming of current multiprogrammable pacemakers : Still unsatisfactory?
Article in Herz, 2020. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPacemaker (PM) technology has developed tremendously in recent decades. We evaluated the extent of individual programming in current PMs.
methodsOver a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and these were interrogated in situ. Programming of patient data, leads, and study parameters including mode, lower rate, upper tracking or sensor rate (UTSR), ventricular refractory time, sleeping function, hysteresis, and PM-mediated tachycardia intervention were analyzed and compared with delivery settings. Alterations in atrial/ventricular capture management and atrial/ventricular sensing assurance as well as changes in sensitivity and lead output were evaluated.
resultsWe examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs, with 125 (81.2%) being PMs. Finally, 72 (57.6%) PMs were eligible for analysis with an operation time of 31.0 ± 27.0 months. We excluded 28 (18.2%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), 51 (41%) PMs presenting elective replacement indicator (ERI), two (1.6%) PMs with programming to insufficient function prior to death, and the left ventricle parameter of one (1.4%) cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P); further one CIED (0.6%) was not contactable. PMs offered in mean 75.2% of study parameters thereof 88.0% were to adjust manually, whereof 49.3% stayed unchanged to delivery mode. Lead output, UTSR, lower rate, and mode were the most frequently changed parameters (>85.7%, 65.3%, 54.2%, and 52.8%, respectively) compared with unmodified ventricular refractory time and hysteresis (91.7% and. 85.4%, respectively); 2.8% of PMs had out-of-the-box settings. The most frequent personalized data were last (88.9%) and first name (73.6%), while atrial and ventricular serial lead numbers were rarely entered (18.2% and 23.4%, respectively).
conclusionThe programming possibilities of PMs have advanced greatly. Nonetheless, improvements in individual PM programming are still needed as demonstrated by the findings in this study, e.g., PMs with manufacturer settings and lack of individual data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30255303What 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.