Key result
Echocardiography, intravenous carbon dioxide, and blood-pool scanning effectively detect experimental pericardial effusions.
Why the study?
The relative accuracy of echocardiography, intravenous carbon dioxide, and blood-pool scanning in detecting pericardial effusions was not established.
Population
25 mongrel dogs of either sex, 10 to 23 kg, anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital
Comparison
Echocardiography vs intravenous carbon dioxide studies vs blood-pool scanning
Design
Preclinical controlled experimental study
Authors
Loading...
Animal model compares imaging for controlled pericardial effusions; leaves open relative accuracy and clinical translation in patients.
This preclinical study describes a controlled dog model for evaluating the relative accuracy of echocardiography, intravenous CO2, and blood-pool scanning in detecting pericardial effusions.
Christensen et al. (1968) studied Pericardial effusions (n=25). Echocardiography, intravenous carbon dioxide, and blood-pool scanning was evaluated on Detection of pericardial effusions. Echocardiography, intravenous carbon dioxide, and blood-pool scanning were evaluated for detecting experimentally controlled pericardial effusions in 25 mongrel dogs.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: