ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2019
Influence of electrical stimulation therapy on permanent pacemaker function.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 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.
- Spinal cord stimulation: An emerging strategy for chronic pain relief after spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- EHRA consensus on prevention and management of interference due to medical procedures in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Wearable Peripheral Electrical Stimulation Devices for the Reduction of Essential Tremor: A Review.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021Article
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
backgroundElectrical stimulation therapy (EST) and transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation (TENS), a modality of EST, have become widely applied, accepted and effective methods for the treatment of musculoskeletal and other pain conditions. According to the rising number of permanent pacemaker (PM) wearers the number of potential candidates for EST with concomitant device implantation is growing. Contradictory recommendations exist regarding the application of EST or TENS on PM wearers.
aimThe study was carried out to evaluate the impact of EST on PM function.
methodsA full size model mimicking the electrical characteristics of the human body was used to evaluate the application of EST on permanent PM devices. Various configurations with respect to energy modality, position of the stimulation electrodes and PM device models were evaluated. Intracardiac PM electrogram tracings (iEGM) were analyzed for the interference of EST with PM function.
resultsUnilateral EST application did not cause interference with PM function in any of the configurations (0%; n = 700). On the contrary, bilateral stimulation (350 configurations in total) caused either ventricular inhibition or switch to V00 back-up pacing due to electrical interference in 165 cases (47.1%) depending on the applied stimulation parameters.
conclusionThe use of EST potentially interferes with PM therapy, especially if the electrodes are positioned bilaterally; however, unilateral EST application appeared to be safe in all tested configurations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31025164What 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.