ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2025
Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Tricuspid Valve Repair.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 2025. 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.
- Contemporary Surgical Tricuspid Valve Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the likelihood of needing a permanent pacemaker (PPM) after tricuspid valve (TV) repair has been thought to be low compared with TV replacement, the incidence and determinants are controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for PPM implantation after TV repair. Methods: A total of 1237 consecutive patients undergoing TV repair from 1997 to 2019 were reviewed using a prospectively maintained database, and 1058 patients were enrolled. Results: Incidence of PPM implantation was 10.3% (n = 109). Median time to PPM implantation was 7 (range, 6-9) days. Indications for PPM implantation were heart block (n = 62, 56.9%), junctional or sinus bradycardia (n = 21, 19.3%), and ventricular arrhythmia (n = 17, 15.6%). Likelihood of PPM varied with concurrent procedures: left ventricular assist device (3.4%), mitral repair (11.2%), mitral valve replacement (13.7%), aortic and mitral valve replacement (19.2%), and isolated tricuspid repair (6.5%). Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.020; 95% CI, 1.003-1.036), prior mediastinal radiation (OR, 4.106; 95% CI, 1.598-10.554), and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement (OR, 1.963; 95% CI, 1.046-3.683) were risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation (OR, 0.325; 95% CI, 0.139-0.759) was a protective factor for PPM implantation. PPM implantation did not affect the early outcomes, overall survival ( Conclusions: The likelihood of PPM implantation after TV repair is relatively high, but PPM implantation does not affect the early and long-term clinical outcomes. Older age, prior mediastinal radiation, and concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement are risk factors, and concomitant left ventricular assist device implantation is a protective factor for PPM implantation after TV repair.
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.