Key result
Fluoroscopy- and echo-guided pericardiocentesis showed no difference in safety or efficacy, with an overall success rate of 97.1% and minor complications in 14% of patients.
Why the study?
This study evaluated the ESC triage score and compared the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy- versus echo-guided pericardiocentesis without additional visualization control in cardiac tamponade.
Does fluoroscopy-guided pericardiocentesis compared to echo-guided pericardiocentesis improve safety and efficacy in patients with cardiac tamponade?
Observational (n=71)
Does fluoroscopy-guided pericardiocentesis compared to echo-guided pericardiocentesis improve safety and efficacy in patients with cardiac tamponade?
Fluoroscopy- and echo-guided pericardiocentesis without additional visualization control showed no difference in safety or efficacy for managing cardiac tamponade.
Echo- or fluoroscopy-guided pericardiocentesis may be used interchangeably; leaves open prospective validation of the ESC triage score.
Background and Objectives: Cardiac tamponade is managed through echo- or fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis. The European Society of Cardiology’s Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases proposed a triage strategy for these patients. This study evaluated the triage score and compared the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy- versus echo-guided procedures without additional visualization control. Materials and Methods: This prospective observational study included 71 patients with cardiac tamponade from February 2021 to June 2022. Pericardiocentesis was performed using fluoroscopy or echo guidance based on clinical assessment and catheterization laboratory availability, without the additional control of needle/guidewire position or ECG monitoring. Patients were followed for three months. Results: The study included 71 patients (52.1% female, mean age 59.7 ± 15.7 years). Malignancy was the most common comorbidity (59.2%). Echo criteria led to urgent procedures in 47.9%, with subcostal access used most often (60.6%), particularly in fluoroscopy-guided procedures (93.8%, p = 0.003). The success rate was 97.1%, with minor complications in 14% of patients. Diabetes and malignancy predicted complications regardless of access site or guiding method. The triage score did not affect complication rates or short-term mortality. Conclusions: Fluoroscopy- and echo-guided pericardiocentesis without additional visualization control showed no difference in safety or efficacy. Delaying the procedure for patients with a triage score ≥6, or performing it early for those with a low score, did not impact complication rates or mortality, which were more influenced by the progression of the underlying disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simeunović et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Cardiac tamponade (n=71). Fluoroscopy-guided pericardiocentesis vs. Echo-guided pericardiocentesis was evaluated on Safety and efficacy (success rate and complications). Fluoroscopy- and echo-guided pericardiocentesis showed no difference in safety or efficacy, with an overall success rate of 97.1% and minor complications in 14% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: