ArticleHeart rhythm2022
Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.
Article in Heart rhythm, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Sick Sinus Syndrome: Trends in Incidence and Pacemaker Implantation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
- COVID-19 and Cardiac Arrhythmias: Lesson Learned and Dilemmas.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 infection among patients hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation: Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Healthcare in Croatia: A Comprehensive Nationwide Survey.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Contributions of Israel to the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and implantable devices.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- The clinical use of remote parameter testing during cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation procedures: a single center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Pacemaker implantation for persistent sinus node dysfunction in a patient with COVID-19.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Long-term cardiac surveillance and outcomes of COVID-19 patients.Trends in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Pacing through a pandemic-Coping with the "tip of the iceberg".Heart rhythm · 2022Article
- Combined leadless pacing and subcutaneous defibrillation strategy in a high-risk patient: first case report from Peru.Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
51 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey.
methodsFifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure.
resultsThe CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe.
conclusionCIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.
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.