What does this research mean for the field?

Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis have significantly higher in-hospital all-cause mortality compared to those who do not, irrespective of the underlying cancer type. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the prevalence, clinical characteristics, cancer types, and in-hospital all-cause mortality among adult cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States.

August 4, 2026Cancer MedicineOpen Access

Prevalence, characteristics and mortality of cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States between 2004 and 2017

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis had significantly higher in-hospital all-cause mortality compared to those not undergoing the procedure (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001).

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Cancer (n=19773597). Intervention: Pericardiocentesis vs. Cancer patients not undergoing pericardiocentesis. Primary outcome: In-hospital all-cause mortality (p=<0.001).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Pericardiocentesis in cancer patients is linked to ~4-fold higher in-hospital mortality.

P<0.001
n=19,773,597

Why the study?

Data were limited on the frequency, characteristics, and mortality of patients with different cancers undergoing pericardiocentesis.

What are the characteristics and in-hospital mortality rates of hospitalized adult cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis compared to those who do not?

Key Points

To evaluate the prevalence, clinical characteristics, cancer types, and in-hospital all-cause mortality among adult cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States.
Analyzed all hospitalizations of adult cancer patients (≥18 years) in the US National Inpatient Sample between January 2004 and December 2017 (N=19,773,597 weighted cancer discharges).
Stratified the cohort using International Classification of Diseases codes for cancer types and pericardiocentesis to compare clinical features and in-hospital outcomes.
Pericardiocentesis was performed in 18,847 (0.1%) cancer hospitalizations, most frequently in patients with lung (51.3%), haematological (15.9%), and breast (5.4%) cancers.
In-hospital all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis compared to those who did not (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001).
Metastatic disease (aOR 2.67, 95% CI 1.79-3.97), weight loss (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33-1.65), and coagulopathy (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.63-6.37) were independently associated with higher mortality in the pericardiocentesis cohort.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=19,773,597)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

What are the characteristics and in-hospital mortality rates of hospitalized adult cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis compared to those who do not?

Population

19,773,597 adult hospitalizations with a cancer diagnosis from the US National Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2017, evaluated for the utilization and outcomes of pericardiocentesis.

Exposure

Pericardiocentesis during hospitalization (n=18,847)

Comparator

No pericardiocentesis during hospitalization (n=19,754,751)

Outcome

In-hospital all-cause mortalityhard clinical

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 15.6% vs 4.2%

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

Potential coding issues associated with administrative databases like the National Inpatient Sample
Inability to differentiate if pericardiocentesis was performed for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes
Inability to determine the timing of cancer diagnosis (known vs. newly diagnosed)
Transition between ICD-9 and ICD-10 systems could have affected captured estimates
Inadequate granularity of the ICD-9 coding system to detect all patients with pericardial effusion or pericardial window procedures
Observational nature allows for determination of association but not causality
Outcomes are limited to the in-hospital period without long-term follow-up
Lack of data on recurrent procedures, readmissions, direct procedural outcomes, laboratory parameters, cancer treatment, and cancer staging
Retrospective observational design
Reliance on ICD-9 and ICD-10 billing codes for diagnoses and procedures
Exclusion of 2.3% of cases due to missing data

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

Pericardiocentesis is infrequently performed in hospitalized cancer patients but is associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality, particularly in those with metastatic disease, weight loss, and coagulopathy.

Cite This Study

Matetić et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Cancer (n=19,773,597). Pericardiocentesis vs. Cancer patients not undergoing pericardiocentesis was evaluated on In-hospital all-cause mortality (p=<0.001). Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis had significantly higher in-hospital all-cause mortality compared to those not undergoing the procedure (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7164e7fe4101aa97e08e69 https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5373

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Prevalence, characteristics and mortality of cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States between 2004 and 2017

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Prevalence, characteristics and mortality of cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States between 2004 and 2017

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider