ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Types of Complications and Associated Factors in Patients Undergoing Permanent Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Predicting new-onset persistent conduction disturbance following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the usefulness of FEOPS finite element analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to identify the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 70 patients who underwent TAVI at the Department of Cardiology, Fujian Provincial Hospital, from January 2018 to March 2022. Based on whether a new PPM was implanted after TAVI, all patients were divided into two groups: NEW PPM and NO PPM. Baseline characteristics and clinical data were compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis was used to analyze different variables between the two groups. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate independent correlates for PPM implantation after TAVI.
resultsThe mean age of the 70 patients was 73.1 ± 8.8 years. The incidence of PPM implantation was 17.1%. Patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease were more likely to require PPM (50% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.042, 25% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.042). Our study did not identify any significant differences in the incidence of electrocardiographic conduction disturbances except for the previous right bundle branch block (RBBB) (NO PPM 6.9% vs. NEW PPM 33.3%, p < 0.05). We found that prosthesis size, implantation depth, procedural duration, and length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays were comparable between the two groups. The leading independent predictors of PPM implantation were previous RBBB (odds ratio 10.129, p = 0.034).
conclusionThe previous RBBB was the leading independent predictor of PPM implantation. New PPM was not associated with significantly new-onset left BBB, extended post-procedure hospitalization, ICU stay, or procedural duration.
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.