Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871728›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021

A Disruptive Technology: Determining Need for Permanent Pacing After TAVR.

Amneet Sandhu, Wendy S Tzou

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amneet SandhuDivision of Cardiology, Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Wendy S TzouDivision of Cardiology, Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. wendy.tzou@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-1165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has changed the paradigm for management of severe aortic stenosis. Despite evolution of TAVR over the past 2 decades, conduction system disturbances remain a concern post-TAVR. In this review, we describe (1) permanent pacemaker (PP) implant rates associated with TAVR, (2) risk factors predicting need for PP therapy post-TAVR, (3) management of perioperative conduction abnormalities, and (4) novel areas of research. RECENT

findingsConduction disturbances remain a common issue post-TAVR, in particular, left bundle branch block (LBBB). Though newer data describes resolution of a significant fraction of these disturbances over time, rates of pacemaker therapy remain high despite improvements in valve technology and procedural technique. Recent consensus statements and guideline documents are important first steps in standardizing an approach to post-TAVR conduction disturbances. New areas of research show promise in both prediction and treatment of conduction disturbances post-TAVR.

Indexed as

Aortic Valve StenosisPacemaker, ArtificialTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementArrhythmias, CardiacBundle-Branch BlockHumansRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeConduction disturbancesHeart blockPermanent pacemakerTranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID33871728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.