Key result
Pericardial catheter placement in dogs with pericardial effusion had similar rates of new arrhythmias (36% vs 64%; P=0.24) and procedural times compared to needle pericardiocentesis.
Why the study?
To compare the safety and efficacy of pericardial catheter placement versus needle pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion.
Does pericardial catheter placement improve safety and efficacy compared to needle pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion?
RCT (n=30)
randomized
No
Does pericardial catheter placement improve safety and efficacy compared to needle pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion?
Pericardial catheters provide a safe and similarly rapid alternative to needle pericardiocentesis for managing pericardial effusion in dogs, without increasing arrhythmia risk.
Pericardial catheters offer a safe alternative for recurrent effusion in dogs; leaves open applicability to human practice.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cook et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in pericardial effusion (n=30). pericardial catheter placement vs. needle pericardiocentesis was evaluated on rate of new arrhythmias (p=0.24). Pericardial catheter placement in dogs with pericardial effusion had similar rates of new arrhythmias (36% vs 64%; P=0.24) and procedural times compared to needle pericardiocentesis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: