ArticleHeart rhythm2026
Alternative pacing strategies after transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions: Procedural challenges and lessons learned.
Article in Heart rhythm, 2026. 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.
- Management of Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Consensus Recommendations.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision making regarding new pacemaker implantation after transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI), including transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), is complex owing to anatomic and TTVI-related challenges.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of nontransvalvular pacing strategies, including coronary sinus (CS) or leadless pacemaker (LP) placement, after TTVI.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing TTVI at a single institution were retrospectively studied for new pacemaker indications and pacing strategy. Procedural challenges and outcomes associated with nontransvalvular pacemaker implantation were assessed.
resultsAmong 137 patients who underwent TTVI (69 TTVR; 68 TEER) at a single center, 34 patients (25%) were excluded for preexisting pacemaker, and 15 of 103 patients (15%) subsequently developed an indication for pacing after TEER (n = 5 of 53; 9%) or TTVR (n = 10 of 50; 20%). An alternative pacing strategy was attempted after TEER and TTVR. After TEER (n = 5), CS lead placement was 50% successful (2 of 4) and 1 LP attempt was unsuccessful (0 of 1). After TTVR (n = 10), CS lead placement was 75% successful (6 of 8) and LP placement was 100% successful (2 of 2) on the initial attempt. CS lead placement was limited by CS anatomy, whereas LP placement was limited by TTVR interaction. A transvenous pacemaker was successfully placed if needed. No pacemaker device-related adverse event occurred in any patient peri-procedurally or at 1-year follow-up.
conclusionAlternative nontransvalvular pacing strategies may be feasible and safe in patients who require pacing after TTVI. Preprocedural planning with a multidisciplinary approach can help optimize procedural success. Further studies and longer-term follow-up are warranted.
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.