ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Exercise Stress Testing in Patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in a Pediatric Exercise Laboratory.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) programming changes in pediatric and/or congenital heart disease (CHD) patients based on evaluation at the time of an exercise stress test (EST). Arrhythmia frequency during EST was also recorded. Single center retrospective chart review was performed in pediatric and/or CHD patients with CIEDs who completed ESTs under direct pediatric electrophysiology supervision from January 2018 to May 2022. CIED interrogations and EST findings were recorded to investigate the frequency of programming concerns and/or adjustments as well as arrhythmia frequency. 119 patients with ESTs; 86.6% patients had a pacemaker, 13.4% with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. 38.7% of patients had changes made to their device programming. The most common adjustments made were device rate related parameters (14.3%) such as atrioventricular delay and upper tracking rate, rate responsiveness (12.6%), and output changes (12.6%). Patients with rate responsiveness turned on were more likely to have programming changes. 65.6% of patients had ectopy or arrhythmias during their EST. Notable ectopy and arrhythmias occurred frequently including 5.9% premature ventricular contractions at peak exercise, 10.9% with complex ventricular ectopy, and 2.5% with non-sustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients on an anti-arrhythmic medication were more likely to have complex ventricular ectopy. This study provides evidence that ESTs are an important component of management in patients with CIEDs. Ectopy and arrhythmias are common in pediatric and CHD patients with CIED who complete ESTs. Knowledge of a patient's anti-arrhythmic medications may assist in risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41207893What 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.