We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Pericardiocentesis is the invasive percutaneous procedure for acute and chronic excessive accumulation of pericardial fluid. There is a paucity of data on the effectiveness and safety of pericardiocentesis in children.
Objectives:
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pericardiocentesis and factors associated with acute procedural failure and adverse events.
Methods:
This was a single-centered retrospective study to describe all the children aged ≤20 years who underwent pericardiocentesis. Data on demographics, etiologies of pericardial effusion, and repeat intervention at follow-up were collected.
Results:
A total of 127 patients underwent 153 pericardiocentesis. The median age was 6.5 years (1 day–20 years) with weight of 17 kg (0.5–125). Most common etiology was post-pericardiotomy syndrome (n = 56, 44%), followed by infectious (12%), malignant (10%), and iatrogenic (9%). Pericardiocentesis was performed more commonly in the catheterisation laboratory (n = 86, 59%). Concurrent pericardial drain placement was performed in 67 patients (53%). Acute procedural success was 92% (141/153). Repeat intervention was performed in 33 patients (22%). The incidence of adverse events was 4.6% (7/153): hemopericardium requiring emergent surgery (n = 2); hemopericardium with hypotension (n = 2); seizure with anesthesia induction (n = 1); and right ventricle puncture with needle (n = 2). Pericardiocentesis at the bedside had a higher rate of acute procedural failure than that in the catheterisation lab (17 versus 1%, p < 0.01). No identifiable risk factors were associated with adverse events.
Conclusions:
Pericardiocentesis was life-saving in children with its high effectiveness and safety even in urgent situations. Although initial pericardiocentesis was effective, one of five patients required re-intervention for recurrent pericardial effusion.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.