Key result
A definite myocardial laceration occurred during percutaneous pericardiocentesis without being detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.
Why the study?
Can myocardial laceration occur without electrocardiographic changes during pericardiocentesis with continuous ECG monitoring?
Case Report
Can myocardial laceration occur without electrocardiographic changes during pericardiocentesis with continuous ECG monitoring?
Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during pericardiocentesis may fail to detect myocardial laceration.
Continuous ECG monitoring may miss myocardial laceration during pericardiocentesis; case report leaves open need for supplementary safeguards.
IN 1951 Bishop et al. described the technic of percutaneous pericardiocentesis with continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in which the paracentesis needle serves as an exploring electrode.1 With this procedure, an injury current is detected if the needle contacts the ventricular (ST-segment elevation) or a trial (PR-segment elevation) epicardium. Numerous studies have shown the technic to be of value in preventing inadvertent myocardial puncture and to clarify the site of origin of bloody fluid.1 2 3 4 In the reported exceptions, myocardial penetration and laceration was accompanied by electrocardiographic changes when this technic was used.5 6 7 8 We recently encountered a circumstance in which a definite myocardial laceration occurred without . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sobol et al. (1975) conducted a case report in Myocardial laceration during pericardiocentesis. Percutaneous pericardiocentesis with continuous electrocardiographic monitoring was evaluated on Myocardial laceration without electrocardiographic changes. A definite myocardial laceration occurred during percutaneous pericardiocentesis without being detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: