Observational studyMedicine2020
Effectiveness and outcomes of 2 therapeutic interventions for cardiac tamponade: A retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single center experience in surgical treatment of traumatic acute pericardial tamponade: a consecutive series of 12 cases.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Unexplained intraoperative cardiac tamponade during thoracoscopic lobectomy: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Acute cardiac tamponade following thoracoscopic lobectomy: a case report and literatures review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Review
- Cardiac tamponade.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage: A national comparison of clinical outcomes and resource use.PloS one · 2022Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pericardial effusions can either be drained by percutaneous pericardiocentesis (PCC) or by surgical pericardiotomy (SP), with limited evidence of superiority for the management of cardiac tamponade (CTa).This study uses the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to investigate the effectiveness of SP and PCC in patients with CTa in terms of clinical outcomes and healthcare costs.Retrospective observational study conducted on the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample 2014 dataset CTa patients. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to assess the impact of different procedures (none, SP, PCC, SP, and PCC) on mortality.A total of 10,410 CTa patients were included, of which 28.9% underwent no procedure, 32.9% underwent SP, 30.2% underwent PCC and 8.0% underwent SP and PCC. Mortality rates were highest in patients undergoing no procedure (22.3%) followed by PCC (15.0%), SP and PCC (11.5%), and then SP (9.6%) (P < .001). SP patients had longer length of stay (11.65 vs 8.16 days, P < .001) and higher total charges ($162,889.1 vs $100,802, P < .001) compared to PCC patients. Undergoing any procedure for CTa reduced the rate of mortality compared to no procedure with SP being the most effective (OR = 0.323, 95%CI 0.244-0.429), followed by SP & PCC (OR = 0.387, 95% CI 0.239-0.626), and then PCC (OR = 0.582, 95% CI 0.446-0.760).Adult CTa patients treated with SP had lower mortality rates but longer length of stay and higher healthcare expenses. This SP associated benefit remained consistent across different subpopulations after stratifying by age and potential disease etiology.
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.