A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients. | LitMetric

Image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients.

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology Section, Unit 325, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Published: November 2009

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical experience with image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients. IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. From November 2002 to January 2008, 40 patients underwent 43 image-guided drainages of pericardial effusions. The medical records were reviewed to analyze the technical aspects of the procedures, complications, and clinical outcomes. Thirty-three pericardial drains were placed and 10 pericardiocenteses were performed. The technical success rate was 100%. Thirty-three procedures were performed under computed tomographic (CT) guidance, five under ultrasound (US) guidance, and five using both CT and US guidance. There were no technical, procedure-related complications. Delayed postprocedure complications and arrhythmias occurred in 11 cases, for an overall complication rate of 25.6%. All complications occurred in patients who had undergone drain placement. Nine patients developed new or worsening arrhythmias and six of these patients required transfer to a higher level of care or the initiation of pharmacological management. In 58.6% of drain placements, including 4 of 11 patients who developed complications, the catheter could have been removed earlier. The median overall survival was 6.47 months (95% CI: 2.37, 12.7). In conclusion, image-guided pericardial drain placement is safe and feasible. Due to the frequency of delayed postprocedure arrhythmias, follow-up monitoring in a telemetry unit is recommended. Prompt catheter removal after drainage may reduce the incidence of delayed post-catheter-insertion arrhythmias.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9594-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pericardial effusions
12
image-guided drainage
8
drainage pericardial
8
effusions oncology
8
oncology patients
8
delayed postprocedure
8
drain placement
8
patients developed
8
patients
7
pericardial
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!