ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2026
Successful management of cardiac tamponade due to right ventricular perforation following temporary pacing wire removal after primary percutaneous coronary intervention at a district general hospital: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Temporary transvenous pacing is frequently required in inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by high-grade atrioventricular block. Right ventricular perforation is a rare but life-threatening complication that may present after wire removal rather than at insertion, complicating recognition. Management is particularly challenging in district general hospitals (DGHs) without on-site cardiothoracic surgery. Case summary: A 62-year-old woman presented in cardiogenic shock to a DGH with inferior STEMI and complete atrioventricular block requiring emergency temporary transvenous pacing and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) to the right coronary artery. Approximately 15 min after pacing wire removal, she developed cardiac tamponade with rapid re-accumulation of pericardial effusion despite pericardiocentesis. Repeat coronary angiography excluded coronary perforation. Bedside agitated saline contrast echocardiography in subcostal views confirmed right ventricular perforation by demonstrating echogenic microbubbles within the pericardial effusion. She was stabilized with auto-transfusion and inotropic support and transferred for emergency surgical repair at a regional tertiary cardiothoracic centre. She achieved complete cardiac recovery with preserved biventricular function at long-term follow-up. Discussion: This case illustrates that life-threatening procedural complications can be successfully managed in DGHs delivering PPCI without co-located cardiothoracic services. The decisive factors were prompt recognition, systematic diagnostic re-evaluation, application of an established bedside diagnostic technique, aggressive haemodynamic stabilization including auto-transfusion, and rapid escalation via direct consultant-to-consultant communication. This integrated approach was critical in achieving an excellent patient outcome. Standing transfer agreements with regional cardiothoracic centres would further reduce time to definitive surgery in comparable emergencies.
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.