ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2022
Implantable loop recorder as a strategy following cardiovascular implantable electronic device extraction without reimplantation.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Ionic Double-Network Hydrogels for Integrated Electromagnetic Shielding and Self-Powered Sensing in Wearable Electronics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited data exists for outcomes in patients undergoing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without clear indications for device reimplantation. The implantable loop recorder (ILR) may be an effective strategy for continuous monitoring in select individuals.
objectiveThis retrospective analysis aims to investigate patients who have undergone ILR implant following TLE without CIED reimplantation.
methodsClinical data from consecutive patients who have undergone TLE with ILR implant and without CIED reimplantation from October 2016 to May 2020 at a single center were collected.
resultsAmong 380 patients undergoing TLE, 28 (7.7%) underwent ILR placement without CIED reimplantation. TLE indications were systemic infection (n = 13, 46.4%), pain at the site (n = 8, 28.6%), device/lead malfunction (n = 4, 14.2%), and other. Devices extracted included: dual-chamber and single-chamber pacemaker (n = 14, 50%; n = 4, 14.2%), dual-chamber implantable cardiac defibrillator (n = 10; 35.7%), and cardiac-resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (n = 1, 3.5%). Reasons for no reimplantation included no longer meeting CIED criteria (n = 14, 50%), patient preference (n = 9, 32.1%), and no clear or inappropriate indication for initial CIED implantation (n = 5, 18%). During an average of 12.3 ± 13.1 months of follow-up, there were no lethal arrhythmias, and four (13.3%) patients underwent permanent pacemaker reimplantation due to symptomatic sinus bradycardia and atrioventricular block with syncope as discovered on ILR. Three patients died due to unknown causes (n = 1), noncardiac (n = 1), and acute coronary syndrome (n = 1).
conclusionsIn patients undergoing TLE without reimplantation, an ILR may be an effective monitoring strategy in patients at low risk for cardiac arrhythmia.
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.