ReviewHeart rhythm O22026
Cardiac lead perforation: Mechanisms, detection, and therapeutic approaches.
Review in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active versus passive fixation leads in cardiac implantable devices: a meta-analysis of post-discharge cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement risk.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Acute Cardiac Tamponade Caused by Right Ventricular Perforation After Temporary Transvenous Pacing.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Subacute pacemaker lead migration with cardiac perforation and extracardiac extension into lung parenchyma with associated pneumothorax.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Lead Perforation: A 25-Year Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac lead perforation is an infrequent but serious complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices, with possibly lethal consequences if left untreated. Because of its very varied clinical appearance and lack of established criteria, perforation still presents diagnostic and therapeutic hurdles despite continuous improvements in lead design and insertion procedures. This review summarizes current research on the processes, risk factors, and clinical range of lead perforation. Thin myocardial walls, especially at the right ventricular apex; active-fixation leads; and operator-dependent elements, such as lead placement and torque, are important anatomic and procedural contributions. Steroid usage, low body mass index, and female sex all increase risk. A strong index of suspicion is often required for prompt diagnosis because presentations vary from asymptomatic instances to severe tamponade. Device interrogation must be integrated with imaging modalities, particularly computed tomography and echocardiography, which each have unique benefits based on the clinical setting, to achieve accurate detection. From cautious observation in stable patients to immediate percutaneous or surgical intervention in unstable or worsening situations, management approaches are highly customized. New technologies, including subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and leadless pacemakers, have the potential to lower the incidence of perforations, but they also present new difficulties that need to be further investigated. Importantly, the lack of consistent diagnostic standards hinders study/ comparability and postpones the creation of guidelines. Standardizing diagnostic criteria, establishing multicenter prospective registries, developing machine learning-based risk stratification tools, and conducting clinical trials to inform the treatment of asymptomatic or delayed perforations are among the top goals for the future. To improve patient outcomes and advance clinical practice, international cooperation and uniform reporting standards are crucial.
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.