ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
A Novel Clinical Perspective on New Masses after Lead Extraction (Ghosts) by Means of Intracardiac Echocardiography.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Massive Tricuspid Regurgitation After Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead Extraction: A Late Complication From Ghost Material.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Ghost in the right atrium: A case report on successful identification of residual fibrous tissue.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Infective Endocarditis among Pediatric Patients with Prosthetic Valves and Cardiac Devices: A Review and Update of Recent Emerging Diagnostic and Management Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Treatment and Prevention of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections.CJC open · 2022Review
- Novel way of patent foramen ovale detection and percutaneous closure by intracardiac echocardiography: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- "Ghost", a Well-Known but Not Fully Explained Echocardiographic Finding during Transvenous Lead Extraction: Clinical Significance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Healthcare-Associated Infective Endocarditis-Surgical Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Pediatric Infective Endocarditis: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Predictors of Exercise Capacity in Dilated Cardiomyopathy with Focus on Pulmonary Venous Flow Recorded with Transesophageal Eco-Doppler.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA lead-reactive fibrous capsule (FC) identified by ultrasounds as an atrial or ventricular lead thickness of more than 1 mm above the vendor-declared lead diameter (TL) and its local fibrotic attachment to the cardiac wall (FAC) have never been investigated in vivo, so their relationship with post-extraction masses (ghost) is not known.
methodsIntracardiac echocardiography (ICE) was performed twice during the same extraction procedure in 40 consecutive patients: before and immediately after infected lead extraction Results: The ghost detection rate was high: 60% (24/40 patients); ICE could identify both TL and FAC, TL being noted in 25/40 (62%) patients and FAC in 12/40 patients (30%). Both TL and FAC were significantly associated with ghosts (
conclusionICE is able to evaluate both TL and FAC in vivo; ghosts are mostly benign remnants of fibrotic lead capsule cut off during extraction and retained inside the heart by FAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.