ArticleHeart failure reviews2013
Epicardial halo phenomenon: a guide for pericardiocentesis?
Article in Heart failure reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Echo- vs. Fluoroscopy-Guided Pericardiocentesis in Cardiac Tamponade.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Cardiac tamponade.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Diagnosis, treatment, and management of pericardial effusion- review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- Feasibility and safety of CT-aided pericardiocentesis from a subxiphoid anterior approach by using fluoroscopy in patients with chronic pericardial effusions.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Pericardial syndromes: an update after the ESC guidelines 2004.Heart failure reviews · 2013Review
- Immortalization protocols used in cell culture models of human breast morphogenesis.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2004Review
- The epicardial halo sign.HippokratiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The epicardial halo delineates the heart shadow in fluoroscopy. To establish whether the sign is applicable to pericardiocentesis guidance, three investigators evaluated its intensity as absent = grade 0, indistinct = 0.5, clear = 1, intensive = 2 in posterior-anterior (PA) and lateral fluoroscopies recorded before pericardiocentesis or cardiac catheterization (Philips Integris-II BH3000). Three populations were studied: (a) 32 patients with pericardial effusion (PE group), 53.1 % males, aged 53.9 ± 13.9 years; (b) 14 patients with perimyocarditis (PM group), 64.3 % males, aged 51.6 ± 14.4 years; and (c) 46 coronary patients (CAD group), no PE, 95.6 % males, aged 67.3 ± 11.8 years. The intensity of the halo phenomenon was highest in patients with PE, lowest in patients with CAD, and intermediate in patients with PM (median sum of grades in PA/lateral view: 4/5 vs. 2/2.5 vs. 3/3, respectively) (p < 0.01). The halo phenomenon correlated well with HR and echocardiographic PE size in both angiographic views. The correlation with body mass index (BMI) and age was significant only in the lateral view and with PE volume only in the PA view. The sensitivity of the halo sign for PE was 84.1 % in PA and 92.0 % in lateral views. In 10/32 PE patients, the evaluation of the sign was repeated after PE drainage, revealing lower grades both in PA and in lateral views (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the epicardial halo sign is highly sensitive for the detection of a PE; it correlates well in at least one angiographic projection with the PE volume, HR, age, BMI, and the PE size in echocardiography and could be therefore applied as a safety guide for pericardiocentesis.
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.