2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrcr.2018.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contralateral pneumothorax and pneumopericardium after dual-chamber pacemaker implantation: Mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The development of pneumothorax contralateral to the venous access site is rare after implantation of implantable cardiac electronic devices, and there have only been a few reports (1)(2)(3)(4). All previous cases of contralateral pneumothorax arose from perforation due to the active atrial lead (same mechanism as observed in the present patient).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The development of pneumothorax contralateral to the venous access site is rare after implantation of implantable cardiac electronic devices, and there have only been a few reports (1)(2)(3)(4). All previous cases of contralateral pneumothorax arose from perforation due to the active atrial lead (same mechanism as observed in the present patient).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Our rare case of pneumopericardium and pneumothorax contralateral to the venous access site after ICD implantation highlights several points. First, pneumopericardium and contralateral pneumothorax developed due to anterolateral perforation of the RA free wall by the active atrial lead, which is the same mechanism as in previous reports (1)(2)(3)(4). In general, the RA lead is positioned in the RA appendage with a low risk of perforation, but it sometimes needs to be positioned at the RA free wall, such as when the RA free wall is the only location with adequate sensing and/or pacing thresholds (noted in approximately 3% of all patients) (4).…”
supporting
confidence: 66%
“…Leadless pacemakers seem to be associated with a slightly higher perforation risk. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads have a larger diameter and a higher rate of perforation, whereas cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRTD)-implantation is associated with the highest risk of perforation [3,[6][7][8][11][12][14][15][16][17].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinically relevant and symptomatic perforation of the cardiac wall occurs mostly within one month after implantation and in 0.3%-1.2% of all pacemaker procedures [6,[11][12]15]. Surprisingly, pericardial effusion was seen in 10% when newly implanted patients underwent a systematic echocardiographic evaluation, but it resolved spontaneously and rarely required therapy although most cases were probably caused by perforation of an implanted lead [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation