ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2021
"Body modification: piercing and tattooing in congenital heart disease patients", decoration or disaster?-a narrative review.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endocarditis in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2026Review
- Transition from Paediatric to Adult Care in Congenital Heart Disease: A Call for Action.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Endocarditis in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients: Prevention, Recognition, and Management.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTattoos and piercings are types of body art, which are gaining popularity over the last decades. An increasing number of adolescents and adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) have piercings or tattoos. This review will provide prudent information on the subject for affected patients and health care professionals caring for them.
backgroundAmongst others, local infections are a common complication in up to 20% of all piercings and isolated cases of systemic infections like endocarditis have been reported. Individuals with congenital heart disease are especially susceptible to endocarditis and prone to suffer severe health consequences from it. In terms of tattooing endocarditis is less common but the localization must be well considered as it might interfere with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), which constitutes an important part of follow up investigations in these patients.
methodsThis article is written as a commentary narrative review and will provide an update on the current literature and available data on common forms of body modification and the potential risks for patients with CHD.
conclusionsIn order to best advise patients and their families, health care professionals must be aware of potential risks accompanying the implementation of body art. Neither the European nor the American guidelines for endocarditis prophylaxis address piercings and tattoos. To our knowledge, there are no clear recommendations concerning piercings and tattoos for adolescents and adults with CHD.
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.