ArticleGlobal heart2025
Urban-Rural Disparity in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10-Year Statewide Cohort.
Article in Global heart, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We examined cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation and outcomes related to geographical remoteness. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult cardiovascular hospitalisations in New South Wales, Australia (2008-2018). The primary outcome was CIED implantation in arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and syncope groups (and subcategories) among rural and regional residents. Secondary outcomes included CIED subtypes: pacemaker (PPM), implantable defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), examination of 10-year implant trends, and 5-year mortality rates adjusted for age and comorbidities. Results: Of the 1,291,258 cardiovascular admissions, 880,972 patients were from major cities (urban), 304,961 from inner regional (regional), and 105,325 from outer regional, rural, or remote areas (rural). Regional and rural patients received less PPMs (regional: aOR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.64-0.69; rural: aOR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.71-0.79), CRTs (regional: aOR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.65-0.78, rural: aOR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.83-0.94), and ICDs for regional patients (aOR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.67-0.77). Differences persisted in subcategories, including PPMs for complete heart block (regional: aOR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.56-0.60, rural: aOR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.62-0.70) and ICDs for ischaemic (regional: aOR = 0.44; 0.34-0.56, rural: aOR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (regional: aOR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.56-0.73, rural: aOR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.87). Five-year mortality rates were higher in rural patients receiving PPM (urban = 23.7%; 95% CI23.2-24.2, rural = 26.4%; 95% CI 25.8-27.0), ICD (urban = 29.5%; 95% CI 28.2-30.7, rural = 32.5%; 95% CI 31.3-33.8) and CRT (urban = 24.2%; 95% CI 22.9-25.5, rural = 26.9%; 95% CI 25.5-28.3). Conclusion: Regional and rural patients had less CIED implantation, with higher 5-year rural mortality rates. Our study highlights the geographical disparity that occurs for patients requiring CIED and the need for further examination to determine the underlying causes and address these inequities.
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.