Pacemaker Lead Migration and Ventricular Perforation in a Patient Presenting with Chest Pain

Case Presentation: We describe a middle-age male with a past medical history of second-degree atrioventricular block type II status post permanent pacemaker placement the day prior who presented to the emergency department complaining of chest pain. Electrocardiography showed a non-paced ventricular rhythm. Chest radiograph showed the ventricular pacemaker lead located distally overlying the right ventricle apical area. On further investigation, chest computed tomography showed a perforation of the ventricular wall by the pacemaker lead prompting urgent intervention by the cardiothoracic surgery team for lead replacement and right ventricular repair. Discussion: Our case illustrates the importance of timely recognition of a perforated pacemaker lead in a patient presenting with chest pain after device implantation. We additionally describe the risk factors for ventricular perforation, initial clinical presentation, and management approach.

Discrepancy between left ventricular hypertrophy by echocardiography and electrocardiographic hypertrophy: clinical characteristics and outcomes

BackgroundThe clinical significance of the discrepancy between left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by echocardiography and ECG remains to be elucidated.MethodsAfter excluding patients who presented with pacemaker placement, QRS duration ≥120 ms and cardiomyopathy and moderate to severe valvular disease, we retrospectively analysed 3212 patients who had undergone both scheduled transthoracic echocardiography (echo) and ECG in a hospital-based population. Cornell product >2440 mm · ms was defined as ECG-based LVH; left ventricular mass index >115 g/m2 for men and >95 g/m2 for women was defined as echo-based LVH. The study population was categorised into four groups: patients with both ECG-based and echo-based LVH (N=131, 4.1%), those with only echo-based LVH (N=156, 4.9%), those with only ECG-based LVH (N=409, 12.7%) and those with no LVH (N=2516, 78.3%).ResultsThe cumulative 3-year incidences of a composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events were 32.0%, 33.8%, 19.2% and 15.7%, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, the HRs relative to that in no LVH were 1.63 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.28), 1.68 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.30) and 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.41) in patients with both ECG-based and echo-based LVH, those with only echo-based LVH, and those with only ECG-based LVH, respectively.ConclusionsEcho-based LVH without ECG-based LVH was associated with a significant risk of adverse clinical events, and the risk was comparable to that in patients with both echo-based and ECG-based LVH.

Isolated Tricuspid Valve Surgery – Repair Versus Replacement: a Meta-analysis

Objective: There is paucity of data on outcomes after isolated tricuspid valve surgery. This meta-analysis aims to compile available data on isolated tricuspid valve surgery and compare isolated tricuspid valve repair (iTVr) with isolated tricuspid valve replacement (iTVR) to elucidate outcomes after tricuspid valve surgery. Methods: A literature search of 6 databases was performed. The primary outcomes was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were early stroke, post-op pacemaker placement, and tricuspid reoperation within 5 years. Publication bias was explored using the funnel plot. Results: Ten retrospective studies involving 1407 patients (iTVr group = 779 patients and iTVR group = 628 patients) were included. A cumulative analysis demonstrated a significant difference favoring iTVr for 30-day mortality [odds ratio – 10 studies (95% confidence interval) 0.34 (0.18-0.66)]; 4.7% versus 12.6%, for iTVr and iTVR, respectively. Post-op pacemaker placement favored iTVr [odds ratio – 6 studies (95% confidence interval) 0.37 (0.18-0.77)]. Although stroke rates and TV reoperation favored iTVr, they did not reach statistical significance. No publication bias was identified. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that iTVr has better 30-day mortality and fewer permanent pacemaker placements. Etiology and severity of TR, as well as careful patient selection remain the most important factors for optimal outcomes.