ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2024
An infusion port for recurrent massive pericardial effusion: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with recurrent massive pericardial effusion are at risk of recurrent cardiac tamponade. The current standard of care includes repeat pericardiocentesis or pericardial window when recurrent effusions cause haemodynamic compromise. Here, we report a case of a patient in whom an infusion port was used for drainage of recurrent pericardial effusion. Patient was followed up for 10 months demonstrating convenience and safety of use without evidence of cardiac tamponade. Case summary: We present a patient with recurrent massive pericardial effusion after previously undergoing two difficult pericardiocenteses of posteriorly located pericardial effusion causing tamponade. An infusion port was implanted and periodical follow-up and drainage through the port were performed. During follow-up, there was no evidence of tamponade caused by recurrence of pericardial effusion and no complications from the port. Discussion: Pericardiocentesis can be challenging in certain circumstances such as loculated or posteriorly located pericardial effusion. For patients with recurrent effusion, there is an incremental risk of serious complications with every pericardiocentesis. This case illustrates the feasibility of using an infusion port in recurrent pericardial effusion. After subcutaneous implantation of the infusion port, repeat pericardiocentesis and its related complications were avoided. Later pericardial decompression and intrapericardial administration of medications were simple and safe by accessing the port top.
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.