Key result
Echocardiographic estimates of pericardial effusion volume correlate poorly with actual aspirated volumes.
Why the study?
The reliability of echocardiographic estimation of pericardial effusion volume using the difference between cubed diameters at end-diastole was uncertain.
Does echocardiographic estimation accurately quantitate the volume of pericardial effusion compared to actual aspirated volume in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis?
Comparison
Echocardiographic estimated volume vs actual aspirated volume of pericardial effusion
Design
Prospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
Echocardiographic effusion volume estimates warrant clinical caution in pericardiocentesis; this cohort study leaves open the reliability of noninvasive quantification.
Observational (n=6)
Does echocardiographic estimation accurately quantitate the volume of pericardial effusion compared to actual aspirated volume in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis?
Effect estimate: r = 0.27
p-value: p=not significant
Echocardiography is not highly accurate for precisely quantitating pericardial effusion volume, though it can differentiate large from moderate or small effusions.
Prakash et al. (1977) conducted an observational in Pericardial effusion (n=6). Echocardiography vs. Actual volume of aspirated pericardial effusion was evaluated on Correlation between actual and echocardiographically estimated volume of aspirated pericardial effusion (r = 0.27, p=not significant). Echocardiographic estimation of pericardial effusion volume correlated poorly with actual aspirated volume (r = 0.27, P not significant), with errors >100 ml in 64% of estimations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: