Superior Vena Cava Perforation During Atrial Lead Implantation in a Patient With Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot: a Case Report

Clicks: 9
ID: 328075
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #345 of 408 articles by views in European Heart Journal - Case Reports

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 408 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Superior vena cava (SVC) injury during pacemaker implantation is rare, with most cases reported during lead extraction rather than placement. In adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD), unexpected resistance during lead advancement requires immediate reassessment because technical or device-related factors can cause venous injury even when pre-procedural imaging does not show hostile venous anatomy. Evidence on the management of venous injury during implantation is limited. Case Presentation A 62-year-old woman with repaired TOF presented with recurrent syncope. An implantable loop recorder documented a 10-second sinus pause. She underwent elective dual-chamber pacemaker implantation. Left subclavian venous access was obtained, and the right ventricular lead was positioned without difficulty. During advancement of the atrial lead, resistance was encountered at the subclavian-SVC junction, and the lead was withdrawn. Intraprocedural venography demonstrated focal contrast pooling at the SVC-azygos junction with mediastinal extravasation, concerning for SVC dissection or contained perforation. The patient remained haemodynamically stable. Transthoracic echocardiography showed no pericardial effusion. Non-contrast computed tomography of the chest confirmed mediastinal contrast adjacent to a patent SVC without obstruction or thrombosis. Conservative management with close observation was undertaken. Repeat CT imaging after 24 hours demonstrated complete resolution. Inspection of the atrial lead revealed unintended extension of the active-fixation screw, suggesting a mechanical mechanism for venous injury. Discussion This case highlights a rare but important complication of pacemaker implantation in ACHD. The normal pre-procedural venous assessment, uncomplicated right ventricular lead placement, and unintended extension of the atrial lead fixation screw support a device-related mechanical mechanism rather than anatomical difficulty. It emphasises immediate cessation of advancement when resistance occurs, lead inspection with confirmation of screw retraction, early venography, and conservative management in haemodynamically stable patients with a patent SVC.
Reference Key
openalex_W7212115986 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ibrahim Antoun, Abdul Hanan Hamid, Mohammad El‐Din, Kassem Safwan
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal European Heart Journal - Case Reports
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjcr/ytag680
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcr/ytag680
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.