Are Elderly Patients at Increased Risk of Complications Following Pacemaker Implantation? A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients over the age of 75 represent more than half the recipients of permanent pacemakers. It is not known if they have a different risk of complications than younger patients. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from the CTOPP, UKPACE, and Danish pacing trials. These three randomized trials of pacing mode systematically captured early and late complications following pacemaker insertion. Early postimplant complications included lead dislodgement or loss of capture, cardiac perforation, pneumothorax, hematoma, infection, and death. Lead fracture was considered a late complication. RESULTS: A total of 4,814 patients were included in this analysis, with an average follow-up of 5.1 years. The average age was 76 years and 43% were female. Any early complication occurred in 5.1% of patients ≥75 years of age compared to 3.4% of patients aged <75 years (P = 0.006). This was driven by an increased risk of pneumothorax (1.6% vs 0.8%, P = 0.07) and both atrial and ventricular lead dislodgement/loss of capture (2.0% vs 1.1%, P = 0.07). Early complications were higher in patients receiving atrial-based pacemakers in both age groups (<75 years: 4.6% vs 2.4%; ≥75 years: 6.6% vs 3.7%); however, the relative risk was not influenced by age group. Older patients had a lower risk of lead fracture (3.6% vs 2.7%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients (≥75 years of age) are at increased risk of early postimplant complications but are at lower risk for lead fracture.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".