ArticleBMC anesthesiology2021
Mediastinal effusion due to pericardiocentesis with cardiac tamponade: a case report.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPericardiocentesis is an effective treatment for cardiac tamponade, but there are risks, including haemorrhagic events, cardiac perforation, pneumothorax, arrhythmia, acute pulmonary oedema and so on. Mediastinal effusion caused by puncture is rarely reported. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old man who had a history of right leg deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism with implantation of an inferior vena cava filter presented for inferior vena cava filter removal. Within 30 min after the procedure, he developed chest pain, nausea, vomiting and presyncope with shock. Echocardiography confirmed massive pericardial effusion with evidence of cardiac tamponade. Emergency pericardiocentesis was performed. Confusingly, only 3 mL of bloody pericardial effusion was drained in total, and subsequently, the patient's symptoms rapidly improved with stable haemodynamics. Repeat echocardiography showed that the pericardial effusion had disappeared. Urgent computed tomography pulmonary angiography demonstrated localized effusion, which was not seen the previous computed tomography results and was noted around the left ventricle in the mediastinal apace. No intervention was performed, given that there was no bleeding tendency or further adverse events related to the mediastinal effusion. The patient was subsequently discharged in a stable condition a few days later, and outpatient follow-up was advised.
conclusionsMediastinal effusion is a rare complication of pericardiocentesis. In the case described herein, the most likely cause was pericardial effusion extravasated into the mediastinum through the needle insertion site in the puncture process due to large pressure variations in the intrapericardial space with tamponade, differing from cases of over-anticoagulation reported in the previous literature. Just as our case demonstrates that conservative treatment of an hemodynamic insignificant mediastinal effusion may be appropriate. Echocardiography is useful and effective to minimize complication rates.
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.