ArticleSurgical case reports2020
Erosion of a right ventricular pacer lead into the left chest wall.
Article in Surgical case reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Case of Delayed Right Ventricular Pacemaker Lead-Associated Perforation Causing Cardiac Tamponade.Cureus · 2025Article
- Defibrillator Lead Perforation Leading to Concerning Electrocardiogram Findings: Case Report.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErosion of a pacer lead into the chest wall may result in pericardial effusion with cardiac tamponade. Free rupture into the pleura or mediastinum can result in hypotension and cardiac arrest. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a unique case of a right ventricular pacer lead which eroded through the right ventricle into the left chest wall and penetrated a rib. The patient presented with a tender chest wall mass without pericardial or pleural effusion. The segment of rib which the pacing lead had penetrated was removed.
conclusionsThe patient tolerated the procedure well and was discharged 1 week after the operation. This case adds to the current literature the justification of removal of temporary and non-functional pacing leads.
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.