ArticleClinical cardiology2008
Prognosis of large, symptomatic pericardial effusion treated by echo-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etiological distribution and mortality factors in pericardial effusion: Insights from a large cohort study.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Echo- vs. Fluoroscopy-Guided Pericardiocentesis in Cardiac Tamponade.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Pericardiocentesis: History, Current Practice, and Future Directions.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- The Value of Cytology in the Evaluation of Malignant Pericardial Effusions: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Outcomes of Patients with and without Malignancy Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Article
- Anatomic Approach and Outcomes in Children Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis.Pediatric cardiology · 2021Article
- Prevalence, Predictors, and Clinical Presentation of Acute Pericardial Effusion Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Causes and prognosis of symptomatic pericardial effusions treated by pericardiocentesis in an Asian academic medical centre.Singapore medical journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Pericardial effusion and pericardiocentesis: role of echocardiography.Korean circulation journal · 2012Article
- Article
- Neoplastic pericardial disease: Old and current strategies for diagnosis and management.World journal of cardiology · 2010Article
- Complications of pericardiocentesis: A clinical synopsis.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsThe causes and prognosis of pericardial effusion (PE) may be different according to time, region, economy, and hospital. This study was performed to evaluate the etiology, clinical outcome, and prognosis of patients with large, symptomatic PE treated by echo-guided pericardiocentesis at Kangnam St. Mary's Hospital (the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea). HYPOTHESIS: According to etiologies of large, symptomatic PE, the prognosis of patients may be different.
methodsWe reviewed 116 consecutive patients who underwent echo-guided pericardiocentesis due to large, symptomatic PE over the last 12 y. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve with log-rank method was applied for the survival analysis.
resultsProcedural success rate of echo-guided pericardiocentesis was 99.1%. Common causes of PE requiring pericardiocentesis were lung cancer (27.6%), tuberculosis (TB) (13.8%), and uremia (6.9%). The mortality rate of 6 mo after the pericardiocentesis was 80.3% in malignant PE, whereas the over-all mortality rate was 18.2% in nonmalignant PE (p < 0.0001). Among the malignant PE, lung cancer (27.6%) and breast cancers (6.9%) were the most common causes. The mean cytologic detection rate and mean life expectancy of malignant PE were 44% and 5-7 mo. Patients with breast cancer and lymphoma had relatively better life expectancy (11.4 and 7.7 mo), whereas those with stomach cancer and metastases of unknown origin (MUO) had poorer prognosis (1.2 and 2.3 mo). The most common causes of nonmalignant PE were TB, uremia, and iatrogenic, and their mean life expectancy was approximately 54 mo.
conclusionsMalignancy, especially lung cancer and TB, were the most common causes of large symptomatic PE. The prognosis of large symptomatic PE was related to the underlying disease. Malignant PE was associated with the poorest prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.