SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Permanent pacemaker rate following Commando and Hemi-Commando procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Commando procedure (double-valve replacement with intervalvular fibrous body reconstruction) is associated with a high risk of postoperative atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. However, precise estimates vary widely. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled permanent pacemaker rate after Commando and Hemi-Commando procedures. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to April 2, 2026. Studies reporting permanent pacemaker rates after Commando or Hemi-Commando surgery (sample size ≥ 5) were included. A random-effects model was used to pool proportions, with logit transformation. Subgroup analyses were performed by procedure type. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessment (Egger's test) were conducted. Results: Twelve studies with 13 data points (797 patients) were included. The pooled permanent pacemaker rate was 22.3% (95% confidence interval: 16.1%-30.0%), with substantial heterogeneity ( Conclusions: One in five patients undergoing Commando surgery requires a permanent pacemaker. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Chimney Commando modification may be associated with a substantially lower risk (6.3% vs. 28.3%). Based on these preliminary findings, the Chimney technique might be a reasonable option in carefully selected patients with small annuli or those undergoing redo surgery, where conduction injury risk is inherently high. However, given the limited evidence, this recommendation should be considered hypothesis-generating. Future prospective comparative studies are needed to validate these hypothesis-generating findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/sgd2e/.
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.