Trial reportClinical cardiology1999
Minimally invasive access of the normal pericardium: initial clinical experience with a novel device.
Trial report in Clinical cardiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-surgical stem cell delivery strategies and in vivo cell tracking to injured myocardium.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011Review
- Article
- Protein NMR in biomedical research.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2004Review
- Intrapericardial therapy and diagnosis.Current cardiology reports · 2002Review
- Simultaneous intra/extravascular administration of antiproliferative agents as a new strategy to inhibit restenosis: the peak of reactive cell proliferation as a hallmark for the duration of the treatment.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pericardial space is being investigated as a reservoir for local drug delivery to the heart and coronary arteries. Intrapericardial drug delivery is currently limited because the pericardial space is normally small and difficult to access by standard pericardiocentesis without invasive surgery or risk of cardiac injury. Clinical trials are being conducted to evaluate a novel, minimally invasive, pericardial access device (PerDUCER, Comedicus Inc., Columbia Heights, Minn.). As of October 26, 1998, 12 clinical trials have been completed on patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures. In all patients, a stab incision was made 1" subxiphoid and a 17G angled cannula, with preloaded guidewire, was advanced into the mediastinal space. After cannula removal, a 19F sheath/dilator was inserted over the wire. In eight patients, a median sternotomy was performed and the position of the sheath over the anterior pericardium (PC) was visually verified. Four patients underwent a closed-chest, fluoroscopy-assisted procedure. In all patients, the PerDUCER was inserted into the chest, via the sheath, and positioned over the PC. The PC was captured by suction and a bleb was formed within a side-hole on the PerDUCER tip. A sheathed needle was advanced, puncturing the isolated bleb of PC. A guidewire was advanced through the needle into the pericardial space and the PerDUCER was removed. Guidewire insertion was successful in 10 patients (7 on first attempt, 3 on second) without adverse hemodynamic effects or arrhythmia. Other than the guidewire insertion site, there was no evidence of injury to the PC or the heart. These initial clinical trials suggest that the PerDUCER may provide safe, rapid and effective percutaneous insertion of a guidewire into the normal pericardial space.
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.