ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Permanent Cardiac Pacing in Children: A 30-Year Follow-Up Retrospective Study in a Single Pediatric Asian Center.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Permanent cardiac pacing in children is commonly indicated in high-grade atrioventricular block. These patients require long-term ventricular pacing (Vp), multiple device changes, and lead revisions. Objectives: To describe a single pediatric center's 30-year experience with permanent pacemaker implantation, focusing on long-term device-associated complications (DACs) and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PIC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study at KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. Patients with permanent pacemakers followed between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2024 were included. Primary outcomes were DAC and PIC. Results: Fifty-three patients underwent 113 pacemaker lead implantations; 51 (96.2%) had epicardial systems. Median follow-up was 12 years (interquartile range [IQR] 9-19 years). Median age at first pacemaker implantation was 16 months (IQR 2 months to 7.7 years). Congenital complete heart block was the most common indication (26 [49%]), followed by postoperative complete heart block (17 [32%]). Freedom from lead-associated complications was 85% and 83% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Eight (15%) patients developed PIC. All patients with PIC had concomitant congenital heart disease (CHD) (8/8). CHD was present in 28.9% (13/45) of patients without PIC. Recovery of ventricular function occurred in two patients following pacing modification, but not in those managed with medical therapy alone. Conclusion: In this pediatric cohort with predominantly epicardial pacing systems, long-term DAC rates were acceptable. PIC occurred primarily in patients with CHD. These findings support careful pacing strategy selection and long-term surveillance in children requiring permanent pacing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.