Key result
Pacemaker implantation induced acute pericarditis with cardiac tamponade, which can mimic lead perforation and should be included in the differential diagnosis.
Case Report (n=1)
Acute pericarditis should be included in the differential diagnosis alongside lead perforation for cardiac tamponade following pacemaker implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Include pericarditis in post-pacemaker tamponade differentials; single case leaves open incidence and management questions.
An 87-year-old woman was diagnosed with third-degree atrioventricular block and underwent pacemaker implantation. On postoperative day 12, she experienced cardiac tamponade that was suspected on computed tomography to be caused by lead perforation; therefore, we performed open-heart surgery. However, we could not identify a perforation site on the heart, and drained a 400-mL exudative pericardial effusion. Subsequently, we diagnosed the pericardial effusion as due to pericarditis induced by pacemaker implantation. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish pericarditis from pacemaker lead perforation, so both should be included in the differential diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shingaki et al. (2014) conducted a case report in Third-degree atrioventricular block (n=1). Pacemaker implantation was evaluated on Cardiac tamponade and pericarditis. Pacemaker implantation induced acute pericarditis with cardiac tamponade, which can mimic lead perforation and should be included in the differential diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: