ArticleCureus2026
Acute Innominate Vein Dissection During Pacemaker Revision Procedure: A Case Report and Conservative Management.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iatrogenic central venous dissection during cardiac pacing procedures is exceptional. We present the case of a 75-year-old woman with a single-chamber pacemaker since 2004, who underwent generator replacement and new ventricular lead implantation in 2025. During the procedure, anomalous resistance to lead advancement was identified. Immediate venography revealed innominate vein dissection with intramural hematoma. The procedure was discontinued, and the patient remained stable. Computed tomography angiography at 24 hours confirmed complete occlusion of the left subclavian and innominate veins due to thrombotic progression. Conservative management with deferred anticoagulation was adopted after confirming clinical stability and absence of pericardial effusion progression. Given that the patient was not pacemaker-dependent (ventricular pacing, 2.6%) and the existing ventricular lead retained adequate electrical parameters, a new generator was connected to the previous lead without adding a new lead, deferring any further transvenous implantation attempt to avoid additional manipulation of the recently injured venous system. The patient evolved favorably, with confirmation of right contralateral access patency as a viable alternative for potential future implantation if clinically required. This case illustrates the importance of early recognition of acute venous injuries and individualization of therapeutic management.
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.