ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of new implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals: a Korean nationwide study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the characteristics and mortality of new implantation of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. From national health insurance claims data in Korea, 17,655 patients, who underwent first and new implantation of CIED between 2013 and 2017, were enrolled. Patients were categorized into the tertiary hospital group (n = 11,560) and non-tertiary hospital group (n = 6095). Clinical outcomes including in-hospital death and all-cause death were compared between the two groups using propensity-score matched analysis. Patients in non-tertiary hospitals were older and had more comorbidities than those in tertiary hospitals. The study population had a mean follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.2 years. In the propensity-score matched permanent pacemaker group (n = 5076 pairs), the incidence of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33) and all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, p = 0.24) were not significantly different between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. These findings were consistently observed in the propensity-score matched implantable cardioverter-defibrillator group (n = 992 pairs, OR for in-hospital death: 1.76, 95% CI 0.51-6.02, p = 0.37; HR for all-cause death: 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.24, p = 0.70). In patients undergoing first and new implantation of CIED in Korea, mortality was not different between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals.
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.