ArticleScientific reports2024
Magnetic resonance-conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian perspective on the prevalence of mixed-brand systems over time.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of physical and dosimetric criteria for managing CIEDs in radiotherapy: A medical physicist's perspective.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The historical restriction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been lifted by certified MRI-conditional systems in recent years. Mixed-brand CIED systems consisting of a generator from one manufacturer and at least one lead from another manufacturer are not certified for MRI. We evaluated the temporal trend in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems in the era of MRI-conditional systems. Data were analyzed on 5853 CIEDs implanted de novo between 2012 and 2022 in 81 Italian centers linked to the nationwide Home Monitoring Expert Alliance network. The percentage of mixed-brand implants was calculated by device type (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD], cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT] device) and over time. A mixed-brand system was implanted in 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6-4.6%) of analyzed patients or, by device type, in 4.5% (3.5-5.7%) of pacemaker patients, 1.1% (0.7-1.7%) of ICD patients, and 6.8% (5.7-7.9%) of CRT pacemaker/defibrillator patients (p < 0.001). Prevalence of mixed-brand implants exhibited significant temporal fluctuations, first declining from 6.6% (2012-2014) to 1.3% (2019), and then increasing to 5.1% (2022). Temporal changes were statistically significant for pacemakers (p < 0.001) and CRT devices (p = 0.001), but not for ICDs (p = 0.438). In the decade between 2012 and 2022, mixed-brand CIED systems were more prevalent in patients treated with pacemakers and CRT devices than in ICD recipients. A decline in the prevalence of mixed-brand systems was observed after the introduction of MRI-conditional systems, reaching a minimum in 2019, followed by a progressive increase in the subsequent years.
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.