Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2024
Complete pacemaker failure following lightning strike injury: A case report.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Torres Gustavo Gomes, de Oliveira William Santos, Neto Nestor Rodrigues de Oliveira
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Modern cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have mechanisms that prevent damage from external electric shocks, and malfunction following accidental electrocution is rare. However, the effects of lightning injuries in patients with CIEDs are uncertain.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 74-year-old man with a dual-chamber pacemaker due to complete heart block was struck by a lightning while farming. He had no serious injury at the time and sought medical evaluation 1 month later, when he presented with asymptomatic bradycardia. Device interrogation suggested major battery and lead damage, requiring extraction and subsequent placement of a new pacing system.
DISCUSSION: While a previous report depicted pacing threshold elevation without extensive device impairment, our patient presented with major damage to the whole pacing system. The factors contributing to these divergent outcomes are unclear. Differences in injury mechanism, pacemaker model, and the pattern of electric current dispersion within the device may each play a part in this discrepancy.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 74-year-old man with a dual-chamber pacemaker due to complete heart block was struck by a lightning while farming. He had no serious injury at the time and sought medical evaluation 1 month later, when he presented with asymptomatic bradycardia. Device interrogation suggested major battery and lead damage, requiring extraction and subsequent placement of a new pacing system.
DISCUSSION: While a previous report depicted pacing threshold elevation without extensive device impairment, our patient presented with major damage to the whole pacing system. The factors contributing to these divergent outcomes are unclear. Differences in injury mechanism, pacemaker model, and the pattern of electric current dispersion within the device may each play a part in this discrepancy.