Literature DB >> 34141029

What is the ideal approach for emergent pericardiocentesis using point-of-care ultrasound guidance?

Lori Stolz1, Elaine Situ-LaCasse2, Josie Acuña2, Matthew Thompson3, Nicolaus Hawbaker4, Josephine Valenzuela5, Uwe Stolz1, Srikar Adhikari6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditionally performed using a subxiphoid approach, the increasing use of point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department has made other approaches (parasternal and apical) for pericardiocentesis viable. The aim of this study is to identify the ideal approach for emergency-physician-performed ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis as determined by ultrasound image quality, distance from surface to pericardial fluid, and likely obstructions or complications.
METHODS: A retrospective review of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound examinations was performed in two urban academic emergency departments for the presence of pericardial effusions. The images were reviewed for technical quality, distance of effusion from skin surface, and predicted complications.
RESULTS: A total of 166 pericardial effusions were identified during the study period. The mean skin-to-pericardial fluid distance was 5.6 cm (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.2-6.0 cm) for the subxiphoid views, which was significantly greater than that for the parasternal (2.7 cm [95% CI 2.5-2.8 cm], P<0.001) and apical (2.5 cm [95% CI 2.3-2.7 cm], P<0.001) views. The subxiphoid view had the highest predicted complication rate at 79.7% (95% CI 71.5%-86.4%), which was significantly greater than the apical (31.9%; 95% CI 21.4%-44.0%, P<0.001) and parasternal (20.2%; 95% CI 12.8%-29.5%, P<0.001) views.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that complication rates with pericardiocentesis will be lower via the parasternal or apical approach compared to the subxiphoid approach. The distance from skin to fluid collection is the least in both of these views. Copyright: © World Journal of Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apical; Emergency department; Parasternal; Pericardial effusion; Pericardiocentesis; Point-of-care ultrasound; Subxiphoid

Year:  2021        PMID: 34141029      PMCID: PMC8188289          DOI: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2021.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Emerg Med        ISSN: 1920-8642


  15 in total

1.  The electrocardiogram as a safeguard in pericardiocentesis.

Authors:  L H BISHOP; E H ESTES; H D MCINTOSH
Journal:  J Am Med Assoc       Date:  1956-09-22

2.  "Blind" pericardiocentesis: A comparison of different puncture directions.

Authors:  Nils Petri; Babett Ertel; Tobias Gassenmaier; Björn Lengenfelder; Thorsten A Bley; Wolfram Voelker
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of significant pericardial effusions following cardiothoracic surgery and outcomes of echo-guided pericardiocentesis for management: Mayo Clinic experience, 1979-1998.

Authors:  T S Tsang; M E Barnes; S N Hayes; W K Freeman; J A Dearani; S L Butler; J B Seward
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Consecutive 1127 therapeutic echocardiographically guided pericardiocenteses: clinical profile, practice patterns, and outcomes spanning 21 years.

Authors:  Teresa S M Tsang; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; William K Freeman; Marion E Barnes; Lawrence J Sinak; Bernard J Gersh; Kent R Bailey; James B Seward
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Pericardiocentesis: differential aspects of a common procedure.

Authors:  A Bastian; A Meissner; M Lins; E G Siegel; F Möller; R Simon
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Pericardiocentesis adverse event risk factors: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Ming-Yun Ho; Jian-Liang Wang; Yu-Sheng Lin; Chun-Tai Mao; Ming-Lung Tsai; Ming-Shien Wen; Chun-Chieh Wang; I-Chang Hsieh; Kuo-Chun Hung; Chao-Yung Wang; Huang-Pin Wu; Tien-Hsing Chen
Journal:  Cardiology       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 1.869

7.  The risk of pericardiocentesis.

Authors:  B Wong; J Murphy; C J Chang; K Hassenein; M Dunn
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  New two-dimensional, echocardiographically directed pericardiocentesis in cardiac tamponade.

Authors:  Y Hanaki; H Kamiya; H Todoroki; K Yasui; S Ohsugi; M Ohno; M Horiba
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of pericardial effusion in patients who underwent echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis: Yonsei Cardiovascular Center experience, 1993-2003.

Authors:  Byoung Chul Cho; Seok Min Kang; Dae Hyuck Kim; Young Guk Ko; Donghoon Choi; Jong Won Ha; Se Joong Rim; Yangsoo Jang; Namsik Chung; Won Heum Shim; Seung Yun Cho; Sung Soon Kim
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2004-06-30       Impact factor: 2.759

10.  Ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis: a novel parasternal approach.

Authors:  Adi Osman; Tan Wan Chuan; Jamalludin Ab Rahman; Gabriele Via; Guido Tavazzi
Journal:  Eur J Emerg Med       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.799

View more
  3 in total

1.  A cadaveric model for transesophageal echocardiography transducer placement training: A pilot study.

Authors:  Ryan W Horton; Kian R Niknam; Viveta Lobo; Kathryn H Pade; Drew Jones; Kenton L Anderson
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2022

2.  A novel in-plane technique ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis via subcostal approach.

Authors:  Adi Osman; Azma Haryaty Ahmad; Nurul Shaliza Shamsudin; Muhammad Faiz Baherin; Chan Pei Fong
Journal:  Ultrasound J       Date:  2022-05-21

3.  Removing pericardial drainage tube for acute cardiac tamponade associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation can trigger hemoperitoneum from severe liver bleeding.

Authors:  Yuhei Kasai; Jungo Kasai; So Asano; Takahiko Nagase; Yukio Sekiguchi; Junichi Nitta
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2022-06-13
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.