Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39995514›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2025

Implantable loop recorder migration: Case-based review and implications for clinical practice.

Allam Harfoush

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clarification and transparency on ILR migration review.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Allam HarfoushThe Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Society, University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are vital for continuous rhythm monitoring; however, post-implantation migration can impair device function. ILR migration may range from minor positional shifts causing discomfort to severe displacement, potentially resulting in device malfunction or requiring surgical intervention. This review examines migration patterns to identify factors associated with ILR migration. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE for case reports on ILR migration from inception to October 2024. Data on patient demographics, comorbidities, device models, implantation sites, detection times, and interventions were qualitatively synthesised to identify factors linked to migration. Results: Older age, female gender, and specific comorbidities emerged as migration risk factors. Device implantation angulation and depth were common contributors. Migration typically followed a posterior or inferior direction and was detected within 5-35 days, often presenting as loss of connection or continuous chest pain. Migration was also observed following patient manipulation of the device. Although migration is rare, cases requiring video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) highlight the significant morbidity associated with this complication. Conclusion: Optimising implantation techniques and employing effective follow-up strategies can reduce the risk of migration and improve migration detection. Further studies with standardised reporting are needed to better understand this complication.

Indexed as

Arrhythmia monitoringDevice displacementImplantable loop recorder migrationPost-implantation complications

Identifiers

PMID39995514
PMCPMC11847085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.