ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Delayed right ventricular perforation 3 years after permanent pacemaker implantation: a case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Right ventricular (RV) lead perforation is an uncommon but serious complication of pacemaker implantation. Most cases occur acutely or subacutely, while very late perforations - beyond 1 year - are exceedingly rare and often unexpected. Presentation of case: We report the case of a 53-year-old woman who presented with syncope and cardiac arrest 3 years after permanent pacemaker implantation. Imaging revealed cardiac tamponade due to RV lead perforation. The patient underwent emergency median sternotomy, lead extraction, and RV repair without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Postoperatively, spontaneous sinus rhythm was preserved, and pacemaker reimplantation was not required. Discussion: Very late lead perforation is rarely reported, especially in young patients without risk factors. This case highlights the unpredictable nature of the complication, the value of contrast-enhanced CT in diagnosis, and key surgical considerations, including when bypass may be avoided and when reimplantation is unnecessary. Conclusion: This case emphasizes the importance of long-term surveillance in pacemaker recipients and individualized management strategies for delayed RV lead perforation.
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.