ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Differences in pacemaker programming between electrophysiology specialists and other physicians.
Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate programming of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) is essential to ensure adequate function and avoid harmful effects. In underdeveloped countries, CIED monitoring and programming are often performed by physicians involved in their implantation. However, many of them often do not have sufficient training in CIED programming.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the differences in pacemaker programming between electrophysiology (EP) specialists and other physicians.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed changes in pacemaker programming performed by an EP specialist in patients who attended for pacemaker evaluation and reported previous follow-ups by a non-EP specialist.
resultsAmong 58 patients (26 males), 41 patients (71%) had programming errors and required setting modifications. The rate adaptative pacing function (R-mode) was incorrectly deactivated in 9 patients (15%) and improperly activated in 2 patients (3%). Unnecessary ventricular stimulation was detected in 23 patients (40%) with a pacing burden of 60% (32-95%). The lower rate limit was unnecessarily high in 12 patients (21%). Atrial or ventricular pacing output was inappropriate in 15 patients (26%) and was consequently modified (4 patients unnecessarily high, 9 patients below requirements). The auto-adapted pacing output was switched off in 17 of 18 patients (16 due to physician's preference, and 1 due to algorithm inaccuracy). The programmed sensitivity was inaccurate in 2 patients (3%). In 2 patients (3%) switching from DDDR to VVIR mode was required.
conclusionWe found a high prevalence of errors in pacemaker programming by non-EP specialists. An EP specialist should always be responsible for CIED follow-up.
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.