ArticleThe patient2025
Patients' Needs and Preferences for Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: A Qualitative Study on Disease and Medical Device Characteristics to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study.
Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac pacemakers are the only long-term treatment for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Despite technological advances, conventional pacemakers still face significant device and procedure-related complications. Recently, leadless pacing systems have been developed to address these issues.
objectiveGiven the benefits and risks of both pacemaker devices, patient preference studies (PPS) are valuable to understand patients' priorities. This study reports qualitative insights that are fundamental to informing the development of attributes and levels of a subsequent quantitative PPS.
methodsThis qualitative phase of a PPS consisted of semi-structured interviews with pacemaker patients. To enhance preference validation, we applied a novel combined approach where patients both scored and ranked disease and treatment-related characteristics. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and analyzed using thematic framework analysis.
resultsThe study included 18 Belgian pacemaker patients (median age = 81 years, 56% being male). Our combined approach identified a stable set of six consistently prioritized characteristics: improvements in (i) dyspnea, (ii) fatigue, (iii) exercise intolerance, alongside device features including (iv) a long battery lifetime, (v) limited risk of long-term complications, and (vi) integration of the latest technology. In contrast, characteristics such as the device location and physical appearance were considered less important compared with the life-saving functionality and quality of life improvements. Patients generally trusted their physicians and showed relatively little interest in deciding the device type.
conclusionsAlthough patients were not actively concerned about their pacemaker treatment, they valued specific disease and treatment-related characteristics important to them. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, derived directly from patients themselves, can inform device development and guide downstream evaluations to foster more informed, patient-centered decision-making that reflects patients' needs and preferences.
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.