Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Following Temporary or Permanent Endocardial Lead Insertion, and the Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While some studies indicate that permanent pacemaker implantation is associated with development of tricuspid regurgitation (TR), other studies indicate no association.Little is known about the impact of temporary lead insertion during ablation procedures, or whether therapy (CRT) prevents TR post-device implantation. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that permanent, but nottemporary endocardial leads, are associated with development of TR, and that CRT would prevent (physiologic) TR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent first device or radiofrequency catheter ablation over a 12-month period at a single, tertiary academic center who underwent pre- and post-procedure echocardiography. RESULTS: In the 89 patients in the device group, the degree of TR significantly increased ≥ 1 grade post-permanent lead implantation: 9 had less TR, 46 were unchanged, and 34 had more TR(p=0.005). TR increased in the 62 patients who underwent device implantation without CRT (p=0.005), but did not increase in the 27 patients with CRT (p=0.47). In the 66 patients in the ablation group, there was no significant change in TR post-ablation: 8 had less TR, 48 were unchanged, and 10 had more TR (p=0.31). CONCLUSION: Permanent endocardial lead implantation was associated with an increase in TR; however, patients who underwent device implantation with CRT did not have an increase in TR.Temporary lead insertion during ablation was not associated with changes in the degree of TR. A large, prospective study is needed to accurately define the incidence and exact mechanisms of permanent endocardial lead-related TR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".