ArticleCase reports in cardiology2026
When Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Can Cause Trouble-A Misplacement of Pacemaker Lead Into the Left Ventricle.
Article in Case reports in cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pacemaker Implantation in Persistent Left-Sided Superior Vena Cava: Challenges and Strategies.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- When Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Can Cause Trouble-A Misplacement of Pacemaker Lead Into the Left Ventricle.Case reports in cardiology · 2026Article
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
Misplacement of pacemakers lead into the left ventricle (LV) is a rare but clinically important complication, often facilitated by unrecognized intracardiac shunts such as a patent foramen ovale (PFO). Early recognition is essential to avoid systemic embolization and ensure safe device function. We report a man in his 70s with a background of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, coronary bypass grafting, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, Parkinson's disease, and prostate cancer, who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation for symptomatic sinus pauses. Follow-up echocardiography 1 year later, performed as part of surveillance of his aortic valve prosthesis, unexpectedly revealed that the ventricular lead had crossed a PFO and was positioned in the LV via the mitral valve. His 12-lead ECG demonstrated a right bundle branch block-like paced morphology, raising suspicion of LV pacing. The patient remained asymptomatic with no evidence of systemic embolization. He was anticoagulated with apixaban and subsequently underwent successful lead extraction and repositioning into the right ventricle (RV). Correct RV placement was confirmed using multiple fluoroscopic views, particularly the left anterior oblique (LAO) projection and by postprocedure ECG, chest x-ray, and echocardiogram. This case underlines the importance of careful assessment of paced ECG morphology, fluoroscopic views during implantation (especially LAO), and postimplant imaging to confirm lead location. Suspicion should be raised when an RBBB-like QRS morphology is observed during RV pacing. Timely recognition and management with anticoagulation, followed by extraction and repositioning, can prevent potentially devastating complications. Operators should remain vigilant for inadvertent LV lead placement, particularly in patients with unrecognized PFO. Routine use of multiple fluoroscopic projections and correlation with ECG and echocardiography can aid early diagnosis and improve procedural safety.
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.