<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>42(1)</volume><submitter>Wattanachayakul P</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>The impact of protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) on patients hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation remains poorly understood.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We utilized the 2020 U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to evaluate the impact of PEM on the in-hospital outcomes of patients who underwent conventional pacemaker implantation. Patients aged 18 and older were identified by ICD-10 CM and PCS codes. Multivariable survey logistic and linear regression analyses were employed to examine in-hospital outcomes, including in-patient mortality, system-based outcomes, and post-procedural complications.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 108 020 patients were identified with 4315 (3.99%) diagnosed with PEM. The mean age of the cohort was 76 years, and 47.5% were female. The ov</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of arrhythmia</journal><pagination>e70279</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12856052</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Clinical Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized for Conventional Pacemaker Implantation With Protein-Energy Malnutrition.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12856052</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Wannaphut C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tahir H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Danpanichkul P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Suenghataiphorn T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Suparan K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wattanachayakul P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Amanullah A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Malin J</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Clinical Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized for Conventional Pacemaker Implantation With Protein-Energy Malnutrition.</name><description>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>The impact of protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) on patients hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation remains poorly understood.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We utilized the 2020 U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to evaluate the impact of PEM on the in-hospital outcomes of patients who underwent conventional pacemaker implantation. Patients aged 18 and older were identified by ICD-10 CM and PCS codes. Multivariable survey logistic and linear regression analyses were employed to examine in-hospital outcomes, including in-patient mortality, system-based outcomes, and post-procedural complications.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 108 020 patients were identified with 4315 (3.99%) diagnosed with PEM. The mean age of the cohort was 76 years, and 47.5% were female. The ov</description><dates><release>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2026 Feb</publication><modification>2026-06-20T04:51:50.825Z</modification><creation>2026-06-20T03:09:28.389Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12856052</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41624113</pubmed><doi>10.1002/joa3.70279</doi></cross_references></HashMap>