ArticleHerz2015
Echo-guided pericardiocentesis in patients with clinically significant pericardial effusion. Outcomes over a 10-year period.
Article in Herz, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term mortality and acute complications after percutaneous pericardiocentesis in cancer and noncancer patients presenting with severe pericardial effusion.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of apical access in percutaneous pericardiocentesis: a comparison with subxiphoid approach.Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025Article
- Complication rates in real-time ultrasound-guided vs static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis: a cohort study.Echo research and 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
- Percutaneous pericardiocentesis using the apical approach: case series and review of the literature.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Ultrasound during Advanced Life Support-Help or Harm?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of Pericardiocentesis in Post-Cardiac Surgery and Nonsurgical Patients with Pericardial Tamponade.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
- Mediastinal effusion due to pericardiocentesis with cardiac tamponade: a case report.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
- Pulmonary hypertension concurrent with pericardial effusion and superior vena cava syndrome: who is the initiator?Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Causes and prognosis of symptomatic pericardial effusions treated by pericardiocentesis in an Asian academic medical centre.Singapore medical journal · 2020Article
- Ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis: a novel parasternal approach.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the present study is to evaluate current echocardiographically (echo)-guided pericardiocentesis practice with regard to procedural success, complication rate, etiological causes, and outcomes of patients with clinically significant pericardial effusion. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who underwent echo-guided pericardiocentesis between January 2004 and February 2014 were identified using an institutional code for the procedure. Other complementary data were obtained by interviewing patients or their relatives (directly or by telephone) and by searching the social security death index.
resultsA total of 301 patients were identified. The pericardium was approached via the subcostal (85 %) or apical (15 %) route under echo guidance in all procedures. The success rate was 97 %, with an intervention-requiring complication rate of 1.3 %. No patient died from complications. The most common etiology was malignancy (n = 84, 28 %). Patients were followed-up for a median of 35 months. Median survival for patients with malignant effusion was 5.9 months compared with 54 months for those with nonmalignant effusion.
conclusionsEcho-guided pericardiocentesis has a high success and low complication rate in current practice. Among etiologies, malignancy remains the most common cause of clinically significant pericardial effusion and is associated with a poor 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.