ArticleClinical cardiology2021
Safety of mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and Physiological Safety of a Lung Vibration Device for Airway Clearance in Patients with Sputum Retention: A Randomized Crossover Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative study on the effect of different high-frequency chest wall oscillation and back patting modes on sputum excretion in patients with severe pneumonia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Study on Respiratory Function and Hemodynamics of AIDS Patients with Respiratory Failure.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Safety of mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device.Clinical cardiology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest physiotherapy (CPT) is a non-pharmacological therapy to facilitate airway secretion removal. There have been concerns about potential electromagnetic interference (EMI) and lead integrity problems during the use of vibrating CPT devices in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). HYPOTHESIS: Two CPT devices can be used safely in patients with CIED.
methodsVolunteer patients with CIED underwent device interrogation to check lead integrity and device function before and after application of CPT devices. Mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) vests were used while monitoring surface electrocardiograms and intra-cardiac electrograms.
resultsWe prospectively enrolled 46 patients with CIEDs (25 pacemakers, 15 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and six cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators). There was no noise detection or EMI during CPT in any patient. None of the patients showed clinically significant changes in lead integrity parameters. HFCWO inappropriately accelerated the pacing rate up to the maximal programmed value in five patients with pacemakers and two with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators.
conclusionCPT may be safely applied to patients with CIED without compromising lead integrity or device function, except for unwanted increase in pacing rate caused by misdetection of chest wall vibration as patients' activity while using HFCWO. Deactivation of the accelerometer-based activity sensor may be needed when HFCWO is planned for CPT.
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.