ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2019
Unscheduled Emergency Visits after Cardiac Devices Implantation: Comparison between Cardioverter Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices in less than one year of Follow Up.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2019. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED), such as the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT), is increasing. The number of leads may vary according to the device. Lead placement in the left ventricle increases surgical time and may be associated with greater morbidity after hospital discharge, an event that is often confused with the underlying disease severity.
objectiveTo evaluate the rate of unscheduled emergency hospitalizations and death after implantable device surgery stratified by the type of device.
methodsProspective cohort study of 199 patients submitted to cardiac device implantation. The groups were stratified according to the type of device: ICD group (n = 124) and CRT group (n = 75). Probability estimates were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method according to the outcome. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant in the statistical analyses.
resultsMost of the sample comprised male patients (71.9%), with a mean age of 61.1 ± 14.2. Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar between the groups (CRT 37.4 ± 18.1 vs. ICD 39.1 ± 17.0, p = 0.532). The rate of unscheduled visits to the emergency unit related to the device was 4.8% in the ICD group and 10.6% in the CRT group (p = 0.20). The probability of device-related survival of the variable "death" was different between the groups (p = 0.008).
conclusionsPatients after CRT implantation show a higher probability of mortality after surgery at a follow-up of less than 1 year. The rate of unscheduled hospital visits, related or not to the implant, does not differ between the groups.
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.