A Single Institution Experience with Pacemaker Implantation in a Pediatric Population over 25 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the development of new technical devices and software more appropriate for pediatric patients, pacemaker implantations in children and young adults have increased over time. It is necessary to monitor the mid- and long-term consequences. The decision for the implantation of a cardiovertor defibrillator (ICD) in children remains challenging despite technical improvements. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of pacemaker implantation in children, to review old and new indications, and to point out changes of management over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 2009, 181 patients required the implantation of a pacemaker or an ICD device at the Heart and Diabetes Centre in Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Their charts have been reviewed pro- and retrospectively for indications, complications, longevity of the device, and the natural course. RESULTS: Indications have been high-degree atrioventricular block in 65% (postoperative 55%) and sinus node dysfunction in 24% (postoperative 90%), including three patients with vasovagally mediated significant bradycardia. Eleven percent required the implantation of an ICD device secondary to significant ventricular arrhythmias. The indication was class II in one-third of all patients. Complications requiring revision occurred in six patients (3.3%); one of them required removal of the device due to an infection. Ten patients died, but none related to pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSION: Pacemaker implantation even in young pediatric patients is generally safe. No complication led to the death of a patient. The number of class II indications has been increasing. The future aim is to improve pediatric algorithms and to prevent unnecessary pacing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".