ReviewCureus2025
Pericardial Tamponade in Trauma: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis, Emergency Management, and Surgical Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Penetrating cardiac injury with no initial radiological findings and negative E-FAST: The critical role of clinical judgment.Trauma case reports · 2026Article
- Complex penetrating trauma complicated by hemorrhagic cardiac tamponade with diaphragmatic rupture and liver laceration.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Case Report: Self-limiting penetrating cardiothoracic injury from a barbed shark dart involving the right atrium.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traumatic pericardial tamponade is a life-threatening emergency caused by the rapid accumulation of blood in the pericardial sac, leading to cardiac compression, decreased cardiac output, and obstructive shock. Early recognition and prompt intervention are crucial in preventing cardiovascular collapse. However, timely diagnosis remains challenging due to overlapping injuries and non-specific clinical signs in trauma settings. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic approaches, emergency management strategies, and surgical outcomes associated with pericardial tamponade in trauma patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2000 and 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on diagnosis, emergency interventions, and surgical outcomes in traumatic pericardial tamponade were included. Five studies involving a total of 546 patients met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The majority of cases resulted from penetrating chest trauma. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) proved to be the most effective tool for early diagnosis, significantly improving detection rates in emergency settings. Pericardiocentesis (PCC) was primarily used as a temporizing measure, while definitive management commonly involved surgical intervention, most notably thoracotomy or pericardial window. Early surgical intervention, especially within the first hour post-injury, was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes. Traumatic pericardial tamponade is a time-critical surgical emergency where rapid diagnosis and early operative management are vital. While PCC may serve as a bridge in select scenarios, definitive surgical treatment remains the gold standard. Multicenter prospective studies are needed to establish standardized protocols and improve outcomes across various healthcare settings.
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.