ArticleThe American journal of case reports2024
Complications in Pericardiocentesis: Right Ventricular Perforation in a 75-Year-Old Patient with Lymphoma.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pericardiocentesis is a commonly used procedure to remove or sample pericardial effusion, and complications of this procedure are rare. This report describes a 75-year-old man with lymphoma and right ventricular perforation during pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion. CASE REPORT A 75-year-old male patient with diffuse large B cell lymphoma was admitted with concerns of refractory chest tightness and breath shortness after physical exercise. Images from echocardiography showed massive pericardial effusion. After a comprehensive clinical assessment, pericardiocentesis was selected as the corresponding strategy, with the aim to improve the symptom of pericardial compression. However, during the procedure, it was found that the catheter was not placed into the expected location, and the right ventricle was damaged by inappropriate puncture, which led to hemopericardium. Computed tomography showed a high-density 2-mm suspected foreign body penetrating from the pericardial cavity, right ventricle to pulmonary main artery. At the same time, echocardiography showed that cardiac compression was more severe from the progressive effusion and continuous clot formation, which could lead to tamponade or even sudden cardiac arrest. Therefore, this patient immediately underwent emergent exploratory thoracotomy to drain the hemopericardium and remove the misplaced catheter, as well as to repair the damaged right ventricle. CONCLUSIONS Pericardiocentesis has risks due to the invasiveness of the procedure; hence, it is important to conduct complete and comprehensive assessments and preparations before the procedure. Once related complications are found, earlier and effective intervention, including emergent surgery, should be necessary.
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.