This review provides a systematic approach integrating clinical and echocardiographic findings to accurately evaluate pericardial effusion and diagnose cardiac tamponade.
May improve bedside tamponade diagnosis; leaves open need for prospective validation.
Pericardial disease leading to pericardial effusion (PEF) is a common condition encountered by the clinician in day-to-day practice. If the PEF becomes large enough, it can cause hemodynamic compromise, resulting in a cardiogenic shock state known as cardiac tamponade. There are many clinical and echocardiographic signs that a clinician can use to assess whether a large PEF is hemodynamically significant. However, these signs can be either conflicting or even absent. The purpose of this review is to first, describe the physiology of the pericardium in health and how it changes with disease; second, outline the pathophysiology of pericardial tamponade and discuss how it is responsible for the physical and echocardiographic findings of cardiac tamponade; and third, suggest an approach to applying these findings in a systematic order to ensure a correct diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schairer et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: