| Title |
Interatrial septum versus right atrial appendage pacing for prevention of atrial fibrillation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Herz, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00059-017-4589-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Zhang, H. Jiang, W. Wang, J. Bai, Y. Liang, Y. Su, J. Ge |
| Abstract |
Interatrial septum (IAS) pacing seems to be a promising strategy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, studies have yielded conflicting results. This meta-analysis was to compare IAS with right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing on the prevention of postpacing AF occurrence. Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched through October 2016 for randomized controlled trials comparing IAS with RAA pacing on the prevention of AF. Data concerning study design, patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Risk ratio (RR), weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. A total of 12 trials involving 1146 patients with dual-chamber pacing were included. Although IAS was superior to RAA pacing in terms of reducing the number of AF episodes (SMD = -0.29, P = 0.05), AF burden (SMD = -0.41, P = 0.008) and P -wave duration (WMD = -34.45 ms, P < 0.0001), neither permanent AF occurrence (RR = 0.94, P = 0.58) nor recurrences of AF (RR = 0.88, P = 0.36) were reduced by IAS pacing. Nevertheless, no differences were observed concerning all-cause death (RR = 1.04, P = 0.88), procedure-related events (RR = 1.17, P = 0.69) and pacing parameters between IAS and RAA pacing in the follow-up period. IAS pacing is safe and as well tolerated as RAA pacing. Although IAS pacing may fail to prevent permanent AF occurrence and recurrences of AF, it is able to not only improve interatrial conduction, but also reduce AF burden. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 22% |
| Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 67% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,565,641
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Herz
#326
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,552
of 316,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Herz
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.