ArticleCureus2025
A Case of Delayed Right Ventricular Pacemaker Lead-Associated Perforation Causing Cardiac Tamponade.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Right ventricular perforation by pacemaker leads is often reported. However, reports of delayed lead perforation, defined as the perforation that occurs >1 month after implantation, are rare. Despite the fact that delayed pacemaker lead perforation can be an emergency, no clear treatment strategy has been defined. Herein, we report our experience with a case of delayed lead-associated perforation causing cardiac tamponade. A 60-year-old man presented to the emergency room with chest and back pain and dyspnea. He had undergone pacemaker implantation for advanced atrioventricular block eight years ago. He was found to have cardiac tamponade due to right ventricular lead-associated perforation. Emergency surgery was performed to drain the fluid and control the bleeding via a median sternotomy. The lead screw had perforated a vein on the cardiac surface. The perforating lead was retained because the threshold and impedance of the lead were unchanged. Only the perforation was repaired. After seven days, the ventricular lead threshold increased. This was managed by adjusting the pacemaker settings. The patient tolerated the procedure well and was discharged home. The treatment of right ventricular lead-associated perforation generally entails removal and reinsertion of the lead. However, in our patient, a definitive diagnosis could not be made before the operation because the right ventricle was not completely perforated by the lead tip. Furthermore, the patient had concomitant cardiac tamponade with signs of shock. Therefore, open surgery was performed. After the perforation site is repaired, the area around the myocardium may deteriorate for several reasons (e.g., edema, fibrosis, and partial myocardial tissue necrosis). Therefore, if the pacemaker lead cannot be removed (or reinserted), as in our patient, measures such as insertion or implantation of a temporary pacemaker lead need to be taken in anticipation of deterioration of the myocardium around the retained lead.
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.