You are accessing a medical content website
Are you a health professional?

 
Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition)
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2018;71:414 - Vol. 71 Num.05 DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2018.01.017

Correction in Article by Cano et al. “Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 14th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2016)”, Rev Esp Cardiol. 2017;70:1083–1097

Refers to

Free articleSpanish Pacemaker Registry. 14th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2016)
Óscar Cano Pérez, Marta Pombo Jiménez, María Luisa Fidalgo Andrés, Diego Lorente Carreño, Raúl Coma Samartín
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2017;70:1083-97
Abstract - Full text - PDF

Article

In the article by Cano et al. titled “Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 14th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2016)”, the authors would like to report the following errors.

The last sentence of the Conclusions section in the abstract, where it says “Age and sex directly influenced pacing mode selection, which could be improved in around 32% of patients”, it should say “Age and sex directly influenced pacing mode selection, which could be improved in around 22.3% of patients”.

In the sub-section Remote Monitoring/Follow-up, where it says “In 2016, there was a significant increase in the use of remote monitoring, involving 4373 pacemakers (11.5% of all implanted pacemakers) and 781 CRT-P devices (65% of all CRT-P devices)”, it should say “In 2016, there was a significant increase in the use of remote monitoring, involving 3895 pacemakers (10.2% of all implanted pacemakers) and 299 CRT-P devices (24.4% of all CRT-P devices)”.

In the sub-section Pacing Modes, where it says “Taking into account the electrocardiographic diagnosis prior to implantation, with only 7.4% of implants being performed in patients with permanent atrial tachyarrhythmia, an estimated 32% of the patients who received single-chamber ventricular pacing”, it should say “Taking into account the electrocardiographic diagnosis prior to implantation, with only 17% of implants being performed in patients with permanent atrial tachyarrhythmia, an estimated 22.3% of the patients who received single-chamber ventricular pacing”

In the Discussion section, where it says “from 5% to 20% in conventional pacemakers and from 15.9% to 65% in CRT-P devices, it should say, “from 5% to 10.2% in conventional pacemakers and from 15.9% to 24.2% in CRT-P devices.

These corrections were made to the electronic version of the article on 20 March 2018.

1885-5857/© 2018 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved