ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2024
[MSB-07] Optimizing Postoperative Cardiac Tamponade Outcomes With Posterior Pericardial Window.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 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
Objective: The study aimed to assess the posterior pericardial windows technique in the management of pericardial effusion following cardiac surgery. Methods: This single-center study examined the data of 1,752 patients who underwent cardiac surgery from 2018 onwards, excluding those who had off-pump coronary artery bypass grafts or emergency surgeries for conditions such as type 1 aortic dissection or infective endocarditis. Of the included patients, a posterior pericardial window was created in 349. The posterior pericardial window was created using electrocautery before the implantation of prosthetic valves or distal anastomosis. No other procedural changes were made. Results: Postoperative drainage rates were monitored. Drains were removed on the second day after surgery. Of the patients with a posterior pericardial window, eight (2.3%) required revision due to tamponade within the first two postoperative days, compared to 53 (3.7%) of the patients without a posterior pericardial window. Patients who required revision were discharged on average seven days later, while those who did not require revision were discharged after five days. Conclusion: The early detection and effective management of cardiac tamponade are crucial due to the potentially life-threatening outcomes. This study highlights the value of the posterior pericardial window technique in reducing complications associated with pericardial effusion following cardiac surgery. The findings support the need for further research to improve surgical approaches and enhance patient outcomes and safety.
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.