Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction may be required because of infection, malfunction, or breakage. The preprocedural identification of lead tip position may help ensure safe performance of the procedure.
Objective: To analyze the ability of chest radiography and CT imaging to characterize lead tip position and identify perforation in a population of patients who underwent lead extraction.
Methods: Among patients who underwent lead extraction between November 2008 and April 2011, a nonrandom subset of 50 patients with 116 leads was selected for retrospective analysis. All patients had undergone chest radiography and thin-section electrocardiography-gated noncontrast cardiac CT. Two radiologists independently evaluated the imaging studies, using oblique multiplanar image reconstruction techniques for the CT examinations. Beam hardening artifacts were graded (0-3). Likelihood of perforation on each imaging study was graded on a 5-point scale.
Results: Among 116 leads, 17 were identified as perforated on CT, 12 leads were equivocal, and 87 were not perforated. Interobserver agreement for CT perforation vs nonperforation was good (κ = 0.71); weighted kappa for the entire 5-point scale was moderate (κ = 0.54). Beam hardening artifacts were common, with a mean value of 2.1. The 2 observers identified perforation on chest radiography with an average sensitivity of 15% compared with CT. The 2 observers did not agree on any cases of chest radiographic perforation (κ = -0.1).
Conclusion: Electrocardiography-gated noncontrast cardiac CT imaging with oblique multiplanar analysis can identify potential lead perforation with a moderate-to-good level of interobserver agreement. Chest radiography demonstrates poor sensitivity and interobserver agreement compared with CT.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.08.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!