ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Differing impacts of cardiac implantable electronic device leads on tricuspid regurgitation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midterm Efficacy of SubcutAneous Implantable CardioVErter-Defibrillator in ≤ 18 Year-Old CHILDREN (SAVE CHILDREN-II Registry).Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Differing impacts of cardiac implantable electronic device leads on tricuspid regurgitation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor Regarding "Differing Impacts of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Leads on Tricuspid Regurgitation".Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Molecular Mechanisms of Cardiac Adaptation After Device Deployment.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) with leads that traverse the tricuspid valve is thought to contribute to tricuspid regurgitation (TR). However, there are relatively limited data comparing the impact of different CIED lead types on the incidence and progression of TR. This study sought to quantify the change in TR severity following implantation of CIEDs with different lead types. Methods: Patient data were collected on individuals with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), right ventricular-paced pacemakers (RV-PM), and His bundle-paced pacemakers (His-PM) placed by a single provider at a single institution between 2016 and 2019. Patients with extravascular CIED placement or with existing devices undergoing upgrade procedures were excluded. Severity of TR after CIED implantation was compared to baseline TR. Results: A total of 97 patients receiving CIEDs were analyzed, including 63 with RV-PMs, 23 with ICDs, and 11 with His-PMs. Median patient age was 72 [interquartile range (IQR) 63-81] years, and 44% of patients were female. Echocardiograms were obtained a median of 20 [4-91] days before CIED implantation and 31 [17.9-43.0] months following implantation. Baseline TR grade was comparable between groups ( Conclusion: The effect of CIED leads on TR represents a spectrum related to the type of lead traversing the tricuspid valve.
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.