ArticleClinical cardiology2021
High frequency ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis performed in the sitting position: A novel apical approach.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complication rates in real-time ultrasound-guided vs static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis: a cohort study.Echo research and practice · 2025Article
- Complications in Pericardiocentesis: Right Ventricular Perforation in a 75-Year-Old Patient with Lymphoma.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of PLANE Technique versus Standard Echocardiography Guidance for Pediatric Pericardiocentesis.Journal of pediatric intensive care · 2024Article
- A case report on ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis with a right parasternal approach: a novel in-plane lateral-to-medial technique.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- High frequency ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis performed in the sitting position: A novel apical approach.Clinical cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSo far, few approaches have been described to reduce inadvertent injury to structure of the heart and nearby organs in percutaneous pericardiocentesis. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that an in-plane high frequency ultrasound-guided apical approach, performed in the sitting position, would provide additional benefits in terms of feasibility and safety for draining malignant pericardial effusion (MPE).
methodsThe authors selected 53 consecutive patients with moderate or large symptomatic MPE who underwent high frequency ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis. After the procedure, all patients were followed for 90 days with the main purpose of detecting procedure success, procedure-related complications, and recurrent PE.
resultsProcedure success rate for pericardiocentesis was 100%. All patients were placed in the sitting position with their left hands extended above the heads. An apical puncture approach was performed in all cases (100%). The mean duration of catheter drainage was 8.1 ± 3.2 days. The mean initial amount of pericardial fluid drained was 956.3 ± 687.5 ml. Overall, six patients (11%) had recurrent PE; 3 (6%) had repeated percutaneous pericardiocentesis. There was no major complication and minor complications occurred in four patients (8%).
conclusionThis novel in-plane high frequency US-guided apical approach has several advantages for percutaneous pericardiocentesis of MPE: performed in the sitting position; a benefit for patients with orthopnea; a maximum inserted wide angle to prevent damage to the myocardium; local enlargement of the PE region; high procedure success rate of pericardiocentesis; and excellent clinical outcomes.
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.