ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Permanent pacing via coronary sinus after tricuspid valve replacement: Keep bipolar coronary sinus leads on hand!
Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation are common after tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). Conventional transvalvular right ventricular pacing carries a risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction, whereas epicardial pacing is limited by surgical complexity, high pacing thresholds, and reduced lead durability. Coronary sinus (CS) pacing represents a potential alternative; however, data following TVR remain limited.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed eight patients who underwent PPM implantation via the CS after TVR at our center. Demographic characteristics, procedural details, and pacing parameters were collected. Electrical performance (pacing threshold, lead impedance, and pacing percentage) was assessed during follow-up.
resultsPPM implantation via the CS was successfully performed in all patients (median age: 61 years; 87.5% female). Seven patients underwent bioprosthetic TVR and one underwent mechanical TVR. The median interval between surgery and PPM implantation was 7 days. Mean procedure and fluoroscopy times were 66.5 ± 25.2 min and 13.3 ± 6.8 min, respectively. No acute or periprocedural complications occurred. During a median follow-up of 20.5 months, pacing thresholds and lead impedance remained stable (median threshold: 1.5 V, IQR: 1.0-2.25; median impedance: 846 Ω, IQR: 470-979), with a median ventricular pacing percentage of 82%. No lead-related complications were observed.
conclusionCS pacing is a feasible and safe strategy for patients requiring PPM implantation after TVR, providing stable electrical performance while avoiding the risks associated with transvalvular and epicardial leads. This approach may be particularly valuable in patients with mechanical prostheses and should also be considered in selected bioprosthetic valve recipients. Larger studies are required to confirm long-term outcomes.
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.