ArticleEuropean heart journal open2026
Pericardiocentesis vs. surgical pericardial window for first occurrence of malignancy-related pericardial effusion: a meta-analysis of retrospective studies.
Article in European heart journal open, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Malignancy-related pericardial effusion (MRPE) is a serious complication of advanced cancer, potentially leading to life-threatening cardiac tamponade. While both pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardial window are used for management, data on comparative efficacy and safety remain heterogeneous. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of pericardiocentesis vs. surgical pericardial window in the management of the first occurrence of MRPE. Methods and results: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar up until May 2025. Articles directly comparing pericardiocentesis to surgical pericardial window, which include patients with MRPE, have first occurrence procedure outcome data, and published in English, were included. Our outcomes consisted of procedure failure (composite of inability to drain, inability to relieve symptoms, or recurrence of effusion), bleeding, infection, pneumothorax, supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVT), and death. A total of six articles met our inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1369 patients, 1086 of whom underwent pericardiocentesis and 253 surgical pericardial windows. Procedure failure was significantly higher in the pericardiocentesis group when compared to the surgical approach [odds ratio (OR): 2.99, 95% CI 1.10-8.14, Conclusion: Both pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardial window showed comparable rates of infection, bleeding, SVT, and pneumothorax in patients with MRPE. However, due to the nature of the procedures, a lower failure rate was seen in surgical pericardial window with a higher death rate.
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.