Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence and Characterization of Asymptomatic Pacemaker and ICD Lead Perforation on CT

HIRSCHL, DAVID A., JAIN, VINEET R., SPINDOLA‐FRANCO, HUGO, GROSS, JAY N., HARAMATI, LINDA B.·2007·Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract

Background: Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used for the management of cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure (CHF). Acute implantation complication rates range from 3% to 7%. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of lead perforation on computed tomography (CT), and correlate these findings with electrophysiologic data. Methods: Images of 100 consecutive patients with permanent pacemakers (n = 72) or ICDs (n = 28) who underwent multidetector CTs of the chest were identified. Cases were reviewed by 2 cardiothoracic radiologists, and a third if there was disagreement. Each CT was reviewed for device and fixation type, tip position, and presence of pericardial effusion. Results were correlated with lead impedance and pacing threshold, when available [79% (79/100)]. A cardiac electrophysiologist interpreted device data. Results: All 100 patients had right ventricular leads (58 passive, 42 active) and 61 had right atrial leads (12 passive, 49 active). 15% (15/100) of patients had a lead perforation. Perforation rates were 15% (9/61) for atrial and 6% (6/100) for ventricular leads (P < 0.05, chi square). Four of 28 (14%) right ventricular ICD leads and 2 of 72 (3%) right ventricular pacemaker leads were perforated (P < 0.05, chi square). 12% (6/49) of active right atrial leads, and 25% (3/12) of passive right atrial leads perforated (P = NS, chi square). 7% (3/42) of active right ventricular leads, and 5% (3/58) of passive ventricular leads perforated (P = NS, chi square). Electrophysiologic parameters did not differ significantly between perforated and nonperforated leads. Conclusion: Asymptomatic perforation is a common phenomenon and rarely resulting in electrophysiologic consequences. Atrial leads perforated more frequently than ventricular leads, and ventricular ICD leads perforated more frequently than ventricular pacemaker leads.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00575.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
HIRSCHL, D. A., JAIN, V. R., SPINDOLA‐FRANCO, H., GROSS, J. N., & HARAMATI, L. B.
Venue
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
28-32
ISSN
  • 0147-8389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-8159
OpenAlex
W1991475615
Cited by
271
References
3
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence and Characterization of Asymptomatic Pacemaker and ICD Lead Perforation on CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00575.x
The paper
HIRSCHL, D. A., JAIN, V. R., SPINDOLA‐FRANCO, H., GROSS, J. N., & HARAMATI, L. B. (2007). Prevalence and Characterization of Asymptomatic Pacemaker and ICD Lead Perforation on CT. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00575.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.