ArticleHippokratia
Leadless pacing: First experience and outcomes in an isolated area in the setting of the Greek financial crisis.
Article in Hippokratia. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeadless pacing (LP) is a novel permanent pacing modality without transvenous leads that is increasingly applied in certain circumstances. We aimed to report our preliminary experience in LP implementation. CASE SERIES: This observational study represents a simple registry of LP systems implanted in our tertiary center from April 2018 until November 2019 in the setting of the Greek financial crisis. Consecutive patients from the isolated area of Northwestern Greece referred to our center for LP were included. Patients' clinical and procedural data, as well as follow-up events, were carefully recorded. Nine patients (mean age: 75 years; six men) were included and were followed for a median period of 20 months. The commonest indication for LP implantation was increased patient infection risk (n: seven), while in the remaining patients (n: two), the indication was problematic vein access along with concomitant comorbidities that increase infection risk. Most of the patients (6/9) were in sinus rhythm, while the rest had slow atrial fibrillation. During the follow-up period, two patients with end-stage renal disease suffered sudden cardiac death, two patients died due to pneumonia, and one patient died due to metastatic cancer. However, no device-related death occurred during the follow-up.
conclusionsOur data indicate that LP's long-term cost-effectiveness is limited in patients with several comorbidities due to increased mortality. Indeed, considering its increased financial cost, well-defined patients' selection criteria should be developed and applied, especially in medium/low-income countries. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (2):75-78.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35937518PMC9347340W4301015523What 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.