ReviewJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2023
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Prevalence and Risk Factors in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Malfunction.
Review in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Research Trends and Hotspots in Cardiac Devices: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Establishing a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Lead Extraction Program in a Resource-Limited Setting.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Are They Truly Still "Enemies"?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) include permanent pacemakers (PPMs), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. They treat several cardiac issues and are dependent on batteries; however, similar to any medical equipment, they can fail. The prevalence and risk factors for CIED malfunction must be understood for earlier detection and better patient outcomes. Material and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted through electronic bibliographic sources (PubMed and Cochrane) until January 2023 in order to identify reviews, cohort studies and case reports pertaining to CIED. The primary outcome is the probability of CIED malfunction. The secondary outcome concerned significant risk factors. Two authors independently extracted articles by utilizing pre-established data fields. Using a random-effects model, the aggregated prevalence and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Results: The meta-analysis comprised eight review articles, twenty-two retrospective studies, and thirty-seven case reports from the systematic review. The eight review articles contained a CIED malfunction of 4.03 % (random-effects model). The pooled prevalence of CIED malfunction in the meta-analysis of 22 retrospective studies was 0.41 percent (using a fixed-effects model) and 8.01 percent (using a random-effects model). Moreover, age, pre-existing cardiac conditions, CIED type, lead placement, and medical device interactions all contributed to an increase in the heterogeneity (I2 = 98.90 %) of the risk of CIED malfunction. Conclusion: CIED malfunction is common and more likely to occur in elderly individuals and in certain types of CIED. Clinicians should focus on risk factors and closely monitor the patients with higher probability for CIED malfunction with short intervals.
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.