ArticleHeart rhythm O22023
Frame-rate reduction to reduce radiation dose for cardiac device implantation is safe.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiation exposure to patient and surgeon during cardiac implantable electrical device (CIED) procedures remains a substantial health hazard to date. Advanced technical options for radiation dose reduction often pose considerable financial hurdles. We propose a near-zero cost, low-effort modification to a clinical x-ray system significantly reducing radiation dose during CIED implantation. Objective: We aim to evaluate a reduced frame rate protocol in CIED implantation for complication rates and reduction in radiation exposure. Methods: Starting May 2019, the frame rate during CIED implantations at our hospital was halved from 7.5 frames/s to 3.8 frames/s, and no further technical changes were made. During the following year, 264 patients were operated using this protocol and retrospectively compared with 231 cases implanted in the year before the protocol change, totaling 495 cases. Of these, 17%, 63%, and 19% were single-chamber, dual-chamber, or resynchronization devices, respectively. Incidence of complication prior to hospital discharge was considered the primary endpoint of the analysis. Radiation dose and procedural parameters were secondary endpoints. Results: There was no increase in complications with the reduced frame rate protocol. Regression analysis further supported that the reduced frame rate radiation protocol was not associated with complication rates. Radiation exposure measured as dose area product was significantly reduced by ∼62% (median 369 [interquartile range 154-1207] cGy·cm Conclusion: A reduction of frame rate during CIED implantation is safe in terms of complication incidence and effective in terms of reducing radiation exposure.
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.