2013
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-013-9822-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prospective evaluation of cinefluoroscopy and chest radiography for Riata lead defects: implications for future lead screening

Abstract: Cinefluoroscopy appears to be more sensitive than CXR for the detection of Riata cable extrusion. Interpretation of CXR by a radiologist with education in lead defects correlates highly with cinefluoroscopy with very high specificity. Depending on available resources for screening, CXR may be a reasonable alternative to cinefluoroscopy. Multidisciplinary collaboration across specialties (radiology and electrophysiology) can lead to improved diagnostic capability and thus the potential for enhanced quality of c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Prevalence of CE ranged from 11% to 43% ( Figure 2A). 6,[10][11][12][13][15][16][17][19][20][21][22]25 Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of CE was 23.1% (95% CI 19.0%-27.6%). In most but not all of these 13 studies, an average lead dwell time was reported (range 3.5-6.2 years).…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Prevalence of CE ranged from 11% to 43% ( Figure 2A). 6,[10][11][12][13][15][16][17][19][20][21][22]25 Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of CE was 23.1% (95% CI 19.0%-27.6%). In most but not all of these 13 studies, an average lead dwell time was reported (range 3.5-6.2 years).…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28] Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of EF was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). Significant heterogeneity was again observed with I 2 = 89.507.…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations