ArticleTanaffos2025
Pericardiocentesis in Massive Pericardial Effusion in the Setting of Pulmonary Hypertension: Is It Beneficial?
Article in Tanaffos, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A serious complication of pulmonary hypertension (PH) is pericardial effusion (PE), which can significantly increase the mortality rate of affected patients. While managing this condition is critical, there is ongoing debate regarding the best therapeutic approaches. Although pericardiocentesis is mostly indicated in patients with cardiac tamponade, it may inadvertently increase mortality in the context of PH. Case Presentation: This case series reports on three patients who experienced PE associated with PH. Each patient received a different treatment, resulting in varying outcomes. One patient, unfortunately, died within 24 hours after undergoing pericardiocentesis. In contrast, the other two patients did not receive the procedure; instead, they were treated with medication. One of them has shown significant improvement after receiving more aggressive medical treatment. Both are alive with unremarkable limitations. Conclusion: The coexistence of pulmonary hypertension and massive pericardial effusion presents a complex challenge for management decisions. An effective approach requires a multidisciplinary strategy to optimize patient outcomes. While pericardiocentesis is essential in cases of massive pericardial effusion, it should be reconsidered if the underlying cause is pulmonary hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42890084PMC13672038What 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.