ArticleBioMed research international2018
Clinical Course of Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients followed by Cardiac Remote Monitoring: Insights from the LION Registry.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients receiving dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (DR-ICD) therapy are at risk of developing atrial arrhythmia because of the increased rate of ventricular pacing and the progression of heart failure. Remote monitoring (RM) may identify the patients at highest risk of adverse events such as atrial arrhythmias. A total of 283 patients with 91,632 remote transmissions during a 15-month follow-up (FU) period enrolled in the LION registry were analysed. The parameters retrieved included the pacing mode, lower rate limit, percentage of atrial (%AP) and ventricular pacing (%VP), and percentage of atrial arrhythmia burden (%AB). In 92.7% of patients, the devices were initially programmed in DDD(R) or DDI(R), with changes of the pacing mode in 19.3% only. The lower rate limit remained stable in 80.4% of patients. At the first transmission, 8.7% of patients suffered from RM-detected atrial arrhythmia, which reached 36% during FU. The %AP was not associated with increased AB (
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.