ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Long-term mortality and acute complications after percutaneous pericardiocentesis in cancer and noncancer patients presenting with severe pericardial effusion.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPercutaneous pericardiocentesis is the standard diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for severe pericardial effusion (PE). While its procedural safety has improved over time, data on long-term outcomes in cancer patients remain limited. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes after pericardiocentesis, with a specific focus on neoplastic-related PE.
methodsWe collected data of patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis at the University Hospital of Modena, between December 2006 and September 2025. Patients were stratified into three groups: neoplastic, idiopathic, and other specific etiologies. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital adverse events.
resultsA total of 179 patients were included (median age 72, 39.7% women). Major procedural-related complications occurred in 4.5% of patients, while in-hospital mortality was 15.6%. During a mean follow-up of 15.8 months, 44.1% of patients died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with neoplastic PE (61.1%) compared with those with other etiologies (44.9%) and idiopathic PE (23.4%, p = 0.001). Neoplastic etiology was independently associated with an increased risk of death compared with idiopathic PE (aHR 5.22, 95% CI 2.41-11.35).
conclusionsOur study showed that percutaneous pericardiocentesis is an effective and safe procedure, with a major complication rate consistent with contemporary series across variable etiologies. Despite similar procedural safety, patients with neoplastic PE experienced markedly worse long-term outcomes linked to the underlying malignancy rather than the procedure itself. In oncological patients, pericardiocentesis should be contextualized within the overall oncological trajectory, balancing procedural benefit with patient prognosis and individual treatment goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484666What 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.