Observational studyPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Joint Pacing and Vascular Intervention for the Management of Cardiac Device Associated Central Venous Obstruction.
Observational study in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Joint Pacing and Vascular Intervention for the Management of Cardiac Device Associated Central Venous Obstruction.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCentral venous obstruction (CVO) increases the complexity of pacing interventions, whether it be with device-associated symptomatic superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS), or by impeding new implants. Endovascular treatment involves the joint expertise of both cardiac pacing and vascular specialists. We report the outcomes of such procedures at our institution.
methodsA single-center retrospective observational study, examining outcomes of joint pacing-vascular procedures for CVO. Cases were screened from an existing institutional database.
resultsThere were 19 total cases. Two were new device implants where the novel "inside-out" procedure was utilized to establish access in SVCS, both with no complications. The remainder (n = 17) were transvenous lead extractions plus attempted recanalization of CVO using venoplasty with or without stenting. Transvenous devices were re-implanted in eight patients. Complete procedure success rate was 84%. There were two cases of pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis, resulting in procedure abandonment. There was no in-hospital mortality and no cases of emergency sternotomy. Over mean follow-up of 28 months, 2/6 patients receiving venoplasty (33%) and 2/8 patients receiving stenting (25%) required re-intervention for symptomatic restenosis. Of the patients who were not re-implanted with a transvenous device following initially successful endovascular intervention (6/14), none had recurrence over the follow-up period.
conclusionPacing interventions in SVCS carry a significant risk profile, requiring management by experienced operators in high-volume centers to maximize safety. Endovascular interventions have a significant recurrence rate, with up-front stenting potentially being superior. Our data suggests that those without re-implantation of transvenous leads may have better long term outcomes.
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.