ArticleThe Journal of invasive cardiology2012
Comparison of surgical pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for pericardial effusion.
Article in The Journal of invasive cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05061914 (Surgical Options for Management of Pericardial Effusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 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.
Surgical Options for Management of Pericardial Effusion
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- In the Catheterization Laboratory, Most Iatrogenic Cardiac Tamponades Require Only Pericardiocentesis: A Single-Center Experience.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Pericardial effusion in oncological patients: current knowledge and principles of management.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2024Review
- Variations in current clinical practice of postoperative pericardial effusion: a questionnaire study.Open heart · 2023Article
- Cardiac Tamponade Causing Predominant Left Atrial and Ventricular Compression After Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement.The American journal of case reports · 2022Article
- Large Pericardial Effusion-Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options, with a Special Attention to the Role of Prolonged Pericardial Fluid Drainage.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- CT-Guided Pericardial Drainage: A Safe and Viable Alternative to Ultrasound-Guided Drainage.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022Review
- Pericardial Drain Placement in Interventional Radiology: An Overview.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022Review
- Pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage: A national comparison of clinical outcomes and resource use.PloS one · 2022Article
- Percutaneous pericardial catheter drainage for symptomatic uremic pericardial effusions with narrow safety margins.PloS one · 2022Article
- Outcomes of Patients with and without Malignancy Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Article
- How to Perform Pericardiocentesis in Cancer Patients With Thrombocytopenia: A Single-Center Experience.JACC. CardioOncology · 2021Review
- Isolated Chylopericardium in an Infant With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.JACC. Case reports · 2020Article
- Effectiveness and outcomes of 2 therapeutic interventions for cardiac tamponade: A retrospective observational study.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Pericardial Disease in Cancer Patients.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Pericardial effusion-induced subcutaneous edema in the trunk and lower limbs after percutaneous drainage for carcinomatous pericarditis: report of a case.International cancer conference journal · 2018Article
- Outcomes of Cancer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2015Article
- Long and wrong way: Unintended pericardial catheter insertion through stomach.Journal of cardiology cases · 2014Article
- Comparison of the effectiveness of pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardiotomy in the prognosis of patients with blunt traumatic cardiac tamponade: a multicenter study using the Japan Trauma Data Bank.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to investigate the outcomes for different treatments of pericardial effusions.
backgroundThe optimal initial management for symptomatic pericardial effusions remains controversial.
methodsWe performed a 3-year retrospective, single-institution study comparing open surgical drainage to percutaneous pericardiocentesis for symptomatic pericardial effusions.
resultsBetween 2007 and 2009, a total of 193 patients underwent an initial drainage procedure for a pericardial effusion (n = 121 [62.7%] pericardiocentesis; n = 72 [37.3%] open surgical drainage). Compared to those treated with pericardiocentesis, treatment with open surgical drainage was associated with a higher complication rate (4.9% vs 26.4%; P<.0001; odds ratio [OR], 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-18.2). Treatment with pericardiocentesis was associated with a higher rate of repeat procedures to drain a recurrent effusion compared to open surgical drainage (28.9% vs 2.8%; P<.0001; OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 3.3-61.3). Thirty-day mortality (19.8% surgical group vs 18.1% pericardiocentesis group; P=.8) and long-term survival (P=.4) did not differ between the groups.
conclusionThere is no significant difference in overall mortality between open surgical drainage and percutaneous pericardiocentesis for symptomatic pericardial effusions. There may be more procedural complications following surgical drainage of a pericardial effusion, and a greater need for repeat procedures if the effusion is drained using pericardiocentesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23117314PMC3713510W2170020123What 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.