ArticlePediatric cardiology2020
Epicardial Pacemaker in Neonates and Infants: Is There a Relationship Between Patient Size, Device Size, and Wound Complicatıon?
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Broader Perspective on Anti-Ro Antibodies and Their Fetal Consequences-A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Long-term outcome of permanent epicardial pacemaker implantation in neonates: Experience from an Indian center.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the complications after epicardial pacemaker (PM) implantation in neonates and infants and their relationship with factors such as device size and patient size. Between May 2010 and July 2018, 55 patients under 1 year of age who underwent epicardial PM placement were retrospectively evaluated. PM-related complications requiring rehospitalization were determined as wound site problems requiring surgical intervention, battery pocket infection, battery pocket dehiscence without infection, PM removal, relocation of the PM system, and replacement of the PM system with another system. The patients were divided into three groups: < 3 kg, 3-5 kg and > 5 kg. Fifty-five patients underwent PM implantation, 43 (78.2%) because of postoperative atrioventricular block (AVB), 10 (18.2%) because of congenital AVB, and two (3.6%) with diagnoses of c-TGA and AVB. Five (9%) patients incurred 18 complications. No statistically significant difference was observed in complication development between the groups (p > 0.05). Single- or dual-chamber device implantation did not affect complication development (p > 0.05). Despite the role of factors such as low weight, low age, and device volume in the development of wound complications, the relationship between these factors and complications is not statistically significant. Therefore, our results are encouraging in terms of the use of dual-chamber PMs instead of single-chamber ones in heart diseases in which AV synchronization is important.
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.