ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)1998
Ventricular pacemaker upgrade: experience, complications and recommendations.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caudal fluoroscopy to guide venous access for pacemaker device implantation: should this now be standard practice?Heart Asia · 2017Article
- Detect Long-term Complications After ICD Replacement (DECODE): Rationale and Study Design of a Multicenter Italian Registry.Clinical cardiology · 2015Article
- Pacemaker insertion.Annals of translational medicine · 2015Article
- Pneumothorax resulting from subclavian puncture: a complication of permanent pacemaker lead implantation.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2004Article
- Consensus statement for implantation and follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices in India.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess outcomes of pacemaker upgrade from single chamber ventricular to dual chamber.
designRetrospective analysis of patients undergoing the procedure.
settingSpecialist cardiothoracic unit. PATIENTS: 44 patients (15 female, 29 male), mean (SD) age at upgrade 68.2 (12.9) years.
interventionsUpgrade of single chamber ventricular to dual chamber pacemaker.
main outcome measuresProcedure duration and complications.
resultsPrincipal indications for upgrade were pacemaker syndrome (17), "opportunistic"--that is, at elective generator replacement (8), heart failure (7), non-specific breathlessness/fatigue (7), and neurally mediated syncope (3). Mean (SD) upgrade procedure duration (82.9 (32.6) minutes) significantly exceeded mean VVI implantation duration (42.9 (13.3) minutes) and mean DDD implantation duration (56.6 (22.7) minutes) (both p < 0.01). Complications included pneumothorax (1), ventricular arrhythmia requiring cardioversion (2), protracted procedure (10), atrial lead repositioning within six weeks (8), haematoma evacuation (1), superficial infection (1), and admission to hospital with chest pain (1); 20 patients (45%) suffered one or more complications including four of the eight who underwent opportunistic upgrade.
conclusionsPacemaker upgrade takes longer and has a higher complication rate than either single or dual chamber pacemaker implantation. This suggests that the procedure should be performed by an experienced operator, and should be undertaken only if a firm indication exists. Patients with atrial activity should not be offered single chamber ventricular systems in the belief that the unit can be upgraded later if necessary at minimal risk.
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.