Key result
Subxiphoid pericardial drainage resulted in a significantly lower technical success rate (87.2%) compared to lateral thoracotomy (100%) for treating symptomatic pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
Does subxiphoid pericardial drainage compared to lateral thoracotomy improve operative and 30-day mortality in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery?
Cohort (n=152)
No
Does subxiphoid pericardial drainage compared to lateral thoracotomy improve operative and 30-day mortality in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery?
While subxiphoid drainage is faster and can be performed under local anesthesia, it has a lower technical success rate than lateral thoracotomy, and its failure is associated with high mortality due to cardiac injury.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Subxiphoid drainage may warrant caution after cardiac surgery; leaves open optimal approach and mortality impact in randomized trials.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garip Altıntaş (2014) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic pericardial effusion after open heart surgery (n=152). Subxiphoid open pericardial drainage vs. Lateral thoracotomy was evaluated on Technical success rate (p=<0.003). Subxiphoid pericardial drainage resulted in a significantly lower technical success rate (87.2%) compared to lateral thoracotomy (100%) for treating symptomatic pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: