ArticleCardiology journal2024
Temporary transvenous cardiac pacing in cathlab - myocardial infarction versus other causes - differences, complications, and prognosis. Data from a single-center retrospective analysis.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective exploratory dual-center analysis of temporary transvenous cardiac pacing in cardiogenic shock.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransvenous temporary cardiac pacing (TTCP) is a lifesaving procedure, but the incidence of complications and prognosis depends on the underlying cause. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics, complications, and prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) requiring TTCP vs. patients with TTCP due to other causes.
methodsThe present analysis involved 244 cases in whom TTCP was performed between 2017 and 2021 in a high-volume cathlab. All the procedures were performed by an interventional cardiologist. MI constituted 46.3% of the patients (n = 113), including 63 ST-segment elevation MI patients (55.75%). Non-MI patients (control group) consisted of patients with any cause of bradycardia requiring TTCP.
resultsMyocardial infarction patients requiring TTCP are younger and have a higher prevalence of hypertension and heart failure. The pacing lead is more frequently inserted during asystole/resuscitation, and pacing was needed for a longer time. MI patients required cardiac implantable electronic device implantation less frequently than in other causes (22% vs. 82%, p < 0.01). The incidence of TTCP complications did not differ. The incidence of in-hospital death was 6.5-fold higher in TTCP patients with MI. Logistic regression showed MI to be a strong predictor of in-hospital death (odds ratio: 8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3-57.9).
conclusionsIn-hospital mortality in MI patients requiring TTCP is 6.5-fold higher than in other patients with bradycardia. The complication rate of TTCP is similar in MI and non-MI patients. It is not TTCP but the severity of MI itself and the fact that a pacing lead is frequently implanted in asystole or during resuscitation that is responsible for the higher mortality rate.
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.