Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40960715›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025

To Extract or not To Extract? Navigating Lead Failure in Cardiac Devices.

Eric W Mills, Dingxin Qin, Theofanie Mela

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric W MillsMassachusetts General Hospital, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, USA.
Dingxin QinMassachusetts General Hospital, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, USA.
Theofanie MelaMassachusetts General Hospital, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, USA. tmela@mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewLead failure in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) presents a critical challenge in clinical electrophysiology. These failures can result in inappropriate therapies, ineffective pacing, and even life-threatening outcomes. Despite technological advances in device design, transvenous leads remain an important source of complications. RECENT

findingsNovel developments in lead extraction strategies including pre-procedure risk prediction instruments, estimation of short-term mortality after lead extraction procedure, use of new technologies including shock-wave lithotripsy to facilitate disruption of intravascular calcium, cardioneural ablation to avoid need for reimplantation of cardiac devices, and the use of leadless pacemaker/defibrillator systems followed transvenous extraction are discussed. This review explores the underlying mechanisms of lead failure, highlighting notable cases such as the Riata and Fidelis recalls, and discusses the complex decision-making process surrounding lead abandonment, extraction, or replacement.

Indexed as

Defibrillators, ImplantableDevice RemovalEquipment FailurePacemaker, ArtificialHumansFidelisICDLead ExtractionLead FailureLead ManagementPacemakerRemote MonitoringRiata

Identifiers

PMID40960715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.