Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 349

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Before the Implantation of Pacemakers and Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results of a Large, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

de Oliveira, Julio Cesar, Martinelli, Martino, Nishioka, Silvana Angelina D'Orio, Varejão, Tânia, Uipe, David, Pedrosa, Anísio Alexandre Andrade, Costa, Roberto, Danik, Stephan B.·2009·Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

Abstract

Background— Although routinely administered, definitive evidence for the benefits of prophylactic antibiotics before the implantation of permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from a large double-blinded placebo-controlled trial is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration reduces the incidence of infection related to device implantation. Methods and Results— This double blinded study included 1000 consecutive patients who presented for primary device (Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) implantation or generator replacement randomized in a 1:1 fashion to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Intravenous administration of 1 g of cefazolin (group I) or placebo (group 2) was done immediately before the procedure. Follow-up was performed 10 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary end point was any evidence of infection at the surgical incision (pulse generator pocket), or systemic infection related to be procedure. The safety committee interrupted the trial after 649 patients were enrolled due to a significant difference in favor of the antibiotic arm (group I: 2 of 314 infected patients—0.63%; group II: 11 of 335 to 3.28%; RR=0.19 ; P =0.016). The following risk factors were positively correlated with infection by univariate analysis: nonuse of preventive antibiotic ( P =0.016); implant procedures (versus generator replacement: P =0.02); presence of postoperative hematoma ( P =0.03) and procedure duration ( P =0.009). Multivariable analysis identified nonuse of antibiotic ( P =0.037) and postoperative hematoma ( P =0.023) as independent predictors of infection. Conclusions— Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces infectious complications in patients undergoing implantation of pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circep.108.795906

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 349

Metadata

Authors
de Oliveira, J. C., Martinelli, M., Nishioka, S. A. D., Varejão, T., Uipe, D., Pedrosa, A. A. A., Costa, R., & Danik, S. B.
Venue
Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
Published
2009-02
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
29-34
ISSN
  • 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-3149
OpenAlex
W2546704212
Cited by
349
References
1
FWCI
21.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Before the Implantation of Pacemakers and Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results of a Large, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circep.108.795906
The paper
de Oliveira, J. C., Martinelli, M., Nishioka, S. A. D., Varejão, T., Uipe, D., Pedrosa, A. A. A., Costa, R., & Danik, S. B. (2009). Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Before the Implantation of Pacemakers and Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Results of a Large, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.108.795906

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.