ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Lead fragment characteristics and detection by radiographic imaging after heart transplant.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During orthotopic heart transplant (OHT), removal of a cardiac implantable electronic device involves traction from the device pocket, frequently leaving behind lead fragments. Objective: This study aimed to determine fragment locations, risk factors, chest radiograph (CXR) sensitivity of fragment detection, and risk of fragment-related sequelae. Methods: Among consecutive OHT patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (2017-2024) at our institution, the prevalence and location of fragments were determined by CXR and computed tomography (CT) scan. Using a CT scan as the gold standard, the sensitivity of CXR and radiology reports for lead fragments was determined. Regression identified factors associated with fragments, bacteremia, and fragment-related sequelae. Results: Of 116 patients, 20.7% (n = 24) had fragments (79% by CXR, 21% visible on CT scan only), mostly in the innominate vein (75%). CXR sensitivity for fragments was 79%. Only 7 of 19 fragments (37%) visible by initial post-OHT CXR were reported. Of 20 initial post-OHT CTs, 13 noted fragments (65%). Incremental 5-year lead dwell time (odds ratio [OR] 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.1; Conclusion: At least 20% of OHT patients have retained lead fragments, usually in the innominate vein. CXR is insensitive in identifying fragments. Bacteremia is common after OHT, and longer lead dwell time, dual-coil defibrillator leads, and an increasing number of leads were associated with fragment retention.
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.