Absent right and persistent left superior vena cava: troubleshooting during a challenging pacemaker implant: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Venous anomalies of the thorax can occur in isolation or in association with complex congenital heart disease. The incidence of an absent right superior vena cava in the setting of a persistent left superior vena cava is very rare in the general population with only a dozen cases documented in the medical literature. Such venous anomalies can make for very challenging electronic cardiac device implantation. We report our challenging dual chamber pacemaker implant in a patient with such complex anatomy and focus on our implantation technique that helped achieve adequate lead positioning. CASE PRESENTATION: A 73-year-old Caucasian female with degenerative complete heart block presented for dual chamber permanent pacemaker implant. Lead implantation was very challenging due to abnormal and rare vena cava anatomy; a persistent left superior vena cava drained directly into the coronary sinus and the right brachiocephalic vein drained directly into the left persistent superior vena cava as the patient had an absent right superior vena cava . Adequate right ventricular lead positioning was achieved following numerous lead-stylet manipulations and careful looping in the atria to redirect its trajectory to the ventricular apex. CONCLUSION: Abnormal superior vena cava development is uncommon and can lead to technical challenges when venous access is required during various interventional procedures. Pre-operative imaging can help identify such challenging anatomy allowing appropriate operative planning; careful patient selection is warranted for venography given the risk of contrast nephrotoxicity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".