Observational studyMedicine2018
Safety and efficacy of AAIR pacing in selected patients with sick sinus syndrome.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- His bundle pacing - a curative method: A Case Report.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe DANPACE study suggested implanting dual-pacing dual-sensing dual-response rate-adaptive (DDDR) pacemakers in patients with sick sinus syndrome, even though 90.7% of their atrial-pacing atrial-sensing inhibited-response rate-adaptive (AAIR) group did not require upgrade. Most centers implant DDDR pacemakers due to risk of future atrioventricular (AV) block. Given that AAIR pacemakers are less expensive, have one less lead with potentially one less point of complication, we question whether DDDR pacemakers are superior to AAIR pacemakers. We aim to describe long-term outcomes of AAIR implants.
methodsPatients presenting to the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton, Canada from 1990 to 2012 with sick sinus syndrome without AV block had AAIR pacemakers implanted. Outcomes that were measured over the follow-up time included need for ventricular lead reoperation, incidence of AV block and incidence of sudden cardiac death from AV block.
resultsDuring this period, 330 patients presented with sick sinus syndrome. Eighty-seven (26.4%) patients met criteria for and received AAIR pacemakers. Seventy-eight (91.8%) did not require upgrade over mean follow-up of 10.6 ± 0.6 years. Amongst this group, 31 patients (39.7%) were alive, whereas 47 (60.3%) were deceased at end of follow-up due to other comorbidities. No sudden deaths were attributable to AV block. Only 7 patients (8.2%) required ventricular lead reoperation: 2 (2.4%) presented urgently with symptomatic AV block; 3 (3.5%) had atrial fibrillation requiring beta-blockade; 1 (1.2%) had atrial lead dislodgment; and 1 (1.2%) was electively upgraded at battery end-of-life.
conclusionsThis study looks at safety of AAIR pacemakers with only 2.4% of patients developing AV block requiring urgent upgrade. Approximately 91.8% of patients remained with their original AAIR pacemakers (mean follow-up 10.6 vs 5.4 years in DANPACE). Our findings are similar to the DANPACE study but our conclusions are different as we believe AAIR pacing should be considered for selected patients with sick sinus syndrome without AV block.
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.