ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Perioperative management of cardiac implantable electronic devices: a state of the art narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) offer lifesaving treatment in patients with significant bradycardia or who at risk for malignant arrhythmias. As the implantation and sophistication of these devices continue to increase, it is imperative for perioperative clinicians to be knowledgeable in their management. While societies have produced documents for guidance, they differ in some recommendations. Furthermore, many societies have released updated or new guidance within the last several years. This review aims to summarize the latest types of CIEDs and perioperative management recommendations. Methods: A search in PubMed was performed with a focus on locating guidelines, consensus statements, and practice advisories from major national and international organizations from January 2020 to September 2025. Secondary searches were subsequently conducted based on the content of the initial papers. Only papers in the English language were considered. Key Content and Findings: Five guidance documents were retrieved based on the search. Some had endorsement from numerous groups, but notable organizations included: (I) the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); (II) European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society; (III) British Heart Rhythm Society; (IV) American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC); and (V) AHA. Conclusions: Familiarity with these devices and how to manage them perioperatively is necessary to safely care for these patients in the perioperative period. Although there are similarities between perioperative management strategies, differences exist between recommendations from various societies. Furthermore, the scope of each of these documents differs, with some being more detailed and others lacking details. In the absence of a universal protocol, clinicians could benefit from being familiar with guidance from each of these organizations, taking into consideration the strengths and limitations of the documents, and applying the recommendation that is most relevant and specific to their patient.
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.