ArticleThe American journal of case reports2024
Uncommon Cardiac Perforation and Lead Displacement After Pacemaker Implantation: A Case Study and Diagnostic Insights.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pacemaker implantation serves as a prevalent therapeutic approach for bradycardia or atrioventricular blocks associated with syncope. While generally regarded as safe, this procedure is not devoid of rare yet severe complications. Examples include lead-induced cardiac perforation resulting in pneumothorax or pericardial effusion, which pose life-threatening risks. CASE REPORT This article presents a case study detailing the experience of an 87-year-old patient diagnosed with complete atrioventricular block who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation, complicated by lead displacement and cardiac perforation. Despite the absence of typical post-implantation symptoms, such as backache, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and drops in blood pressure, the electrocardiogram (ECG) revealed a right bundle-branch block pattern. Additionally, bradycardia and occasional pacemaker capture failure were observed the day following pacemaker implantation. Subsequent X-ray and computer tomography examinations confirmed displacement of the ventricular lead and the presence of cardiac perforation and left pneumothorax. Following emergent thoracic drainage and repositioning of the right ventricular lead, the patient was discharged without further complications. CONCLUSIONS This case highlights the importance of thorough post-implantation monitoring, even in the absence of typical symptoms. Early detection through electrocardiogram, X-ray, and CT can facilitate timely intervention, as demonstrated by the successful treatment and discharge of the patient following emergent thoracic drainage and pacemaker lead repositioning.
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.