Key result
Pacemaker lead perforation occurs in ~0.4% of patients, with favorable outcomes under conservative management.
Why the study?
Device therapy and associated complications have increased, and pacemaker lead perforation is one of the most feared complications.
What is the incidence, clinical presentation, and outcome of pacemaker lead perforation in patients undergoing temporary or permanent pacing?
Observational (n=5,493)
No
What is the incidence, clinical presentation, and outcome of pacemaker lead perforation in patients undergoing temporary or permanent pacing?
Pacemaker lead perforation is a rare complication (0.42% incidence) that can generally be managed successfully with careful monitoring and nonsurgical interventions like pericardiocentesis.
Rare perforation risk warrants post-procedure vigilance in pacing; cohort data leaves open modifiable predictors and prevention.
BACKGROUND: Device therapy for various cardiac rhythm disturbances has seen a tremendous increase in recent times, and so have the various complications associated with this therapy. Pacemaker lead perforation is one of the most feared complications associated with these device implantations. This prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the clinical features, diagnosis, and outcome of pacemaker lead perforation in our setting. RESULTS: A total of 5493 patients were included in the study. It included 3438 temporary pacemaker (TPM) lead placements and 2055 patients who had undergone CIED implantation. The comorbidities of the study population include hypertension in 3582(65.21%), Diabetes in 2089(38%), dyslipidemia in 2293(41.74%) and hypothyroidism in 1527(42.6%). The indication of TPM lead implantation include complete heart block (CHB) in 1323(38.48%), TPM during CIED implantation in Sick sinus syndrome (SSS)/trifascicular block and high-grade AV block 766(22.28%), permanent pacemaker generator replacement 330(9.95%), EP study250(7.27%), drug induced heart block 13(0.38%). Indications of CIED implantation include CHB in 1103(53.67%), SSS in 221(10.75%), DCM in 132(6.42%) and ICD in 38(1.85%). There were 23 lead-induced RV perforations, with an incidence of 0.42%. There were 18(78.2%) perforations due to TPM Lead and 5(21.8%) due to CIED leads. Bradycardia was seen in 18(78.3%), hypotension in 8(34.8%), capture loss in 14(60.87%), pain abdomen in 4(17.4%). Pericardial effusion developed in 19(82.6%), tamponade needing pericardiocentesis was seen in 8(34.78%). Surgical intervention was required in 1(4.34%) case. With one death mortality in the study was 4.34%. CONCLUSION: Careful monitoring and nonsurgical management of lead perforation has favourable outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dar et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Cardiac rhythm disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (n=5,493). Temporary pacemaker (TPM) or CIED implantation was evaluated on Incidence of pacemaker lead perforation. In a cohort of 5,493 patients, the overall incidence of pacemaker lead perforation was 0.42% (23 cases), and conservative management yielded favorable outcomes with a 4.34% mortality rate among affected patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: