ArticleGlobal cardiology science & practice2024
Radical pericardiectomy for the treatment of constrictive pericarditis: Single-center experience in Vietnam.
Article in Global cardiology science & practice, 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
backgroundConstrictive pericarditis (CP) is a chronic inflammatory condition often necessitating surgical intervention. Radical pericardiectomy is the standard treatment, but the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) varies based on intraoperative hemodynamics. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of radical pericardiectomy combined with CPB and the apical suction device in treating CP.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 10 patients undergoing radical pericardiectomy for CP. Clinical data, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Follow-up assessments included echocardiographic and clinical evaluations at 3 months, with a mean survival follow-up duration of 30.9 ± 21.3 months.
resultsAmong the included patients, 60% underwent CPB during surgery. Despite longer recovery times and hospital stays, CPB usage did not increase postoperative complications. Echocardiographic and clinical assessments at 3-month follow-up revealed significant improvements in cardiac function and symptom relief. No cases of CP recurrence were observed during the follow-up period.
conclusionRadical pericardiectomy combined with CPB and the apical suction device demonstrates effectiveness in treating CP, with favorable short-term outcomes and low recurrence rates. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up durations are warranted to validate these findings.
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.