ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Impact of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation Position on Subclinical Right Ventricular Perforation.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLeadless pacemakers are typically implanted in the mid-septum of the right ventricle (RV) to mitigate the risk of perforation. However, reports on the precise location of these implants are limited. This study aimed to elucidate tine-based leadless pacemaker position and presence of subclinical RV perforation through computed tomography (CT) imaging, along with the associated prognosis.
methodsPatients who underwent heart, chest or abdomen CT after leadless pacemaker implantation were consecutively included. Two cardiologists and one radiologist reviewed the CT images to assess the position of tines and to detect RV perforation. The implantation position was categorized as the septum, RV free wall, junction of septum and RV free wall, moderator band, and RV apex. Subclinical perforation was defined as the tines of a leadless pacemaker beyond the outer myocardial contour without symptoms, pericardial effusion, hemodynamic instability, or pacemaker malfunction.
resultsA total of 88 patients (age, 72.9 ± 12.1 years; 42 males) were included. The interval between procedure and CT scanning was 8.6 ± 9.2 months. In 68 patients (77.3%), the leadless pacemaker was implanted at the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation occurred in 15 patients (17.0%). Among patients with RV perforation, the most common implantation site was the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. None of the patients with RV perforation experienced any adverse events for 12.4 ± 12.3 months.
conclusionsThe most common leadless pacemaker implantation site is the junction of the septum and the RV free wall. Subclinical RV perforation is not uncommon and not associated with overt adverse 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.