ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2023
Impact of raising the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices on postoperative safety.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Recovery: A Systematic Scoping Review of Upper Extremity Exercise Immediately after Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation.Cardiology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Shoulder Rehabilitation Post-Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Holistic Approaches to Arrhythmia Management: Combining Medication, Ablation, and Device Interventions.Cureus · 2023Review
- Impact of raising the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices on postoperative safety.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical device tends to have a limited range of motion during the perioperative period; however, the underlying reason lacks scientific evidence. This study aimed to investigate the safety of the two methods (stepwise or early) of postoperative early upper extremity rehabilitation. Methods: We retrospectively investigated 650 consecutive patients with a new implantable pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or generator exchange between March 2017 and December 2020.The limitation program was conducted from March 2017 to March 2018. The intervention program started as a stepwise protocol in April 2018 and was switched to an early protocol in December 2019. Results: This study analyzed 591 patients, excluding 59 who met the exclusion criteria. The mean age was 76.0 (69.0-82.0) years; 412 (69.7%) patients had a PM, 79 (13.4%) had an ICD, and 100 (16.9%) utilized CRT. There were 155 patients in the limitation protocol, 251 in the stepwise protocol, and 185 patients in the early protocol groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 53 (9.0%) patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all complications between the three groups (16 patients [10.3%] vs. 26 patients [10.4%] vs. 11 patients [5.9%]). Shoulder exercise-related complications were defined as hematoma ( Conclusion: Raising of the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices above the head did not compromise postoperative safety.
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.