ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2024
Device-device interference triggered by an abandoned pacemaker: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 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.
- Intractable interference between epicardial and transvenous pacemakers induced by radiofrequency catheter ablation.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- When Legacy Triumphs: Resolving Leadless Pacemaker Programming Failure Caused by Loop Recorder Interference.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are prone to electromagnetic interference. Common sources include household electronics and industrial machinery. However, medical equipment can also trigger interferences and cause CIED malfunction. Case summary: We report on a 79-year-old male with sudden onset of presyncope. He has a long history of device therapy, including an active VVI leadless pacemaker and an abandoned abdominal pacemaker with epicardial leads. Automatic reactivation of the abandoned pacemaker due to reaching end-of-life mode led to interaction with the active pacemaker, inhibiting it in its function. Due to elevated capture threshold and insufficient output, pacing by the reactivated pacemaker was accompanied by intermittent loss of myocardial capture and patient symptoms. By changing the mode to VOO and increasing the pacing rate of the active pacemaker, the interaction was prevented as an intermittent solution. The final therapy consisted of explanting the pulse generator of the abdominal pacemaker. Discussion: We present a patient with a deactivated abandoned cardiac pacemaker, which self-activated after reaching end-of-life mode and triggered an interaction with his active pacemaker. This case emphasizes the importance of explanting old devices to avoid potential interaction.
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.