Trial reportPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Early Mobilization After Pacemaker Implantation.
Trial report in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is leading to a rise in procedure-related complications.
objectiveThis trial aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of early mobilization and the possibility of same-day discharge following permanent pacemaker implantation.
methods200 patients were enrolled from 3/2019 to 12/2023 in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned to the Early Mobilization arm with 4 h of post-procedure bed rest or the Late Mobilization arm with 16-24 h of post-procedure bed rest. Primary endpoints include a composite of common complications: hematoma, major bleeding, wound infections, pneumothorax, and lead dislodgement. Secondary endpoints compared the incidence of individual complications from primary endpoints and changes in the technical parameters of the CIED between the two groups. Follow-ups were at 1 and 6 months.
resultsTwo hundred patients were enrolled, 191 (95.5%) had the 6-month follow-up. About 150 patients received a dual lead device, and 50 received a single lead device. There were no significant differences in primary composite complications (EaM vs. LaM; four cases, 4% vs. seven cases, 7%; p = 0.548). There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints EaM vs. LaM; atrial lead dislodgement (2 vs. 2), ventricular lead dislodgement (0 vs. 0), and wound infection (1 vs. 0), respectively. Technical parameters remained stable in both arms without any significant differences, for example, a drop in sensing or an increase in the stimulation threshold.
conclusionThe early mobilization protocol is safe, and the incidence of complications is no higher than that of late mobilization.
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.