ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2025
Aortic perforation following percutaneous coronary intervention in a patient with permanent pacemaker: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2025. 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: Lead perforation is an uncommon complication of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, occurring in 0.1-0.8% of cases (1). Aortic perforation caused by a pacing lead is rare and has been described only in case reports. Case summary: A 70-year-old Chinese man with a medical history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension presented to the hospital with intermittent chest pain of 3 weeks duration. He was diagnosed with chronic coronary syndrome and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to left anterior descending artery. Two days after post-PCI, he developed shock due to cardiac tamponade. A repeat angiogram was unremarkable; however, during thoracotomy, the right atrial pacing lead of a dual-chamber pacemaker, implanted 6 weeks previously for complete heart block, was found to have perforated the aorta. The patient was discharged in stable condition 20 days after successful repair of the aortic perforation. Discussion: Careful analysis of non-specific chest pain is crucial. This case highlights the importance of considering rare sequelae after multiple cardiac procedures, such as PPM and PCI. This case demonstrates the risk of aortic injury from extra-support guides during PCI, particularly near right atrial 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.