2022
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112596
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Different Anatomical Types of Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava: Case Series and Brief Review of the Literature

Abstract: Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is the most common congenital malformation of the thoracic venous system, being present in 0.3% to 0.5% of the general population. In the majority of the cases, PLSVC is asymptomatic, but in certain patients, it can manifest through several symptoms, such as arrhythmias and cyanosis, especially when it is associated with complex cardiac pathologies. The clinical significance of this venous anomaly depends on the anatomical variant of the drainage site. In this article… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 23 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite these risks, PLSVC does not hinder the successful implantation of a pacemaker, ICD, or CRT leads. 14 , 15 Moreover, there are numerous documented reports of successful and uneventful dialysis procedures, as well as numerous chemotherapy administration protocols using CVC inside PLSVC. 16 , 17 However, it is our perspective that if PLSVC has been previously diagnosed, it should only be considered as an alternative vascular access when other sites have failed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite these risks, PLSVC does not hinder the successful implantation of a pacemaker, ICD, or CRT leads. 14 , 15 Moreover, there are numerous documented reports of successful and uneventful dialysis procedures, as well as numerous chemotherapy administration protocols using CVC inside PLSVC. 16 , 17 However, it is our perspective that if PLSVC has been previously diagnosed, it should only be considered as an alternative vascular access when other sites have failed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%