Scholarlink

Background <p>Static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis, the current standard of care, uses a phased-array probe to locate the largest fluid pocket, marking the safest entry site and needle trajectory. Nevertheless, real-time needle visualization throughout the procedure would potentially increase success and decrease complications. The aim of this study was to assess the complication rates of the real-time in-plane ultrasound-guided technique compared to the traditional static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis.</p> Methods <p>All adult patients who underwent pericardiocentesis in a tertiary care hospital from January 2011 to June 2024 were identified. The incidence of total complications of the real-time, in-plane, US-guided pericardiocentesis versus the static echocardiography-guided technique was compared using a regression model with overlap weighting, based on propensity scores, to adjust for confounding factors.</p> Results <p>A total of 220 pericardiocentesis were identified, 91 with real-time, in-plane US-guided technique and 129 with a static echo-guided approach. The overall rate of total complications was 5.5%, with no significant difference between both techniques (IRR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.16, p = 0.163]). Only one major complication was reported with the in-plane technique (pulmonary edema) compared to four major complications in the echo-assisted approach (three cardiac injuries and one injury to thoracic vessels), all of which required emergency surgery. The success rate was higher in the real-time in-plane US-guided procedures (97%) compared to the static echo-guided approach (93%).</p> Conclusions <p>In this single-center retrospective cohort study, real-time in-plane, US-guided pericardiocentesis technique was safe, and the rate of total complications was not significantly different from a static echo-guided approach. The low rate of major complications and high success rate underscores the potential use of this technique in emergency situations by well-trained physicians. Future studies are warranted to thoroughly assess the potential benefits of the real-time approach.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Complication rates in real-time ultrasound-guided vs static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis: a cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月1日

查看全文
  • Virginia Zarama,
  • Carlos E. Vesga,
  • John Balanta-Silva,
  • Mario M. Barbosa,
  • Jaime A. Quintero,
  • Ana Clarete,
  • Paula A. Vesga-Reyes,
  • Juan Carlos Silva Godinez

摘要

Background

Static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis, the current standard of care, uses a phased-array probe to locate the largest fluid pocket, marking the safest entry site and needle trajectory. Nevertheless, real-time needle visualization throughout the procedure would potentially increase success and decrease complications. The aim of this study was to assess the complication rates of the real-time in-plane ultrasound-guided technique compared to the traditional static echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis.

Methods

All adult patients who underwent pericardiocentesis in a tertiary care hospital from January 2011 to June 2024 were identified. The incidence of total complications of the real-time, in-plane, US-guided pericardiocentesis versus the static echocardiography-guided technique was compared using a regression model with overlap weighting, based on propensity scores, to adjust for confounding factors.

Results

A total of 220 pericardiocentesis were identified, 91 with real-time, in-plane US-guided technique and 129 with a static echo-guided approach. The overall rate of total complications was 5.5%, with no significant difference between both techniques (IRR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.16, p = 0.163]). Only one major complication was reported with the in-plane technique (pulmonary edema) compared to four major complications in the echo-assisted approach (three cardiac injuries and one injury to thoracic vessels), all of which required emergency surgery. The success rate was higher in the real-time in-plane US-guided procedures (97%) compared to the static echo-guided approach (93%).

Conclusions

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, real-time in-plane, US-guided pericardiocentesis technique was safe, and the rate of total complications was not significantly different from a static echo-guided approach. The low rate of major complications and high success rate underscores the potential use of this technique in emergency situations by well-trained physicians. Future studies are warranted to thoroughly assess the potential benefits of the real-time approach.