Scholarlink

<p>To compare the effectiveness and safety of pericardiocentesis versus surgical pericardiotomy in managing malignant pericardial effusion (MPE). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies comparing pericardiocentesis with surgical pericardial window in patients with MPE. We computed mean differences (MDs) for continuous endpoints and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial registry: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; Nº: CRD42024572468. A total of 12 studies comprising 3,721 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was a significant increase in re-accumulation of pericardial effusion in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.99–7.31). However, there were no significant difference between groups for in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.68–1.46), bleeding (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00–2.18), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.05–5.12), paradoxical hemodynamic instability (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.32–1.38), and length of stay (MD -0.93; 95% CI -6.17, 4.31). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the length of hospital stay outcome (I<sup>2</sup> = 79%). Additionally, the included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Pericardiocentesis was associated with an increase in re-accumulation of pericardial effusion compared with surgical pericardial window in patients with MPE. However, there was no significant difference between groups for in-hospital mortality, bleeding, atrial fibrillation, paradoxical hemodynamic instability, and length of stay.</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

Pericardiocentesis Versus Surgical Pericardiotomy for Malignant Pericardial Effusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月18日

查看全文
  • Rachid Eduardo Noleto da Nobrega Oliveira,
  • Clara de Andrade Pontual Peres,
  • Amanda Caroline Oliveira,
  • Paul Onyeji,
  • Frederico Kemczenski

摘要

To compare the effectiveness and safety of pericardiocentesis versus surgical pericardiotomy in managing malignant pericardial effusion (MPE). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies comparing pericardiocentesis with surgical pericardial window in patients with MPE. We computed mean differences (MDs) for continuous endpoints and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial registry: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; Nº: CRD42024572468. A total of 12 studies comprising 3,721 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was a significant increase in re-accumulation of pericardial effusion in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.99–7.31). However, there were no significant difference between groups for in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.68–1.46), bleeding (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00–2.18), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.05–5.12), paradoxical hemodynamic instability (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.32–1.38), and length of stay (MD -0.93; 95% CI -6.17, 4.31). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the length of hospital stay outcome (I2 = 79%). Additionally, the included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Pericardiocentesis was associated with an increase in re-accumulation of pericardial effusion compared with surgical pericardial window in patients with MPE. However, there was no significant difference between groups for in-hospital mortality, bleeding, atrial fibrillation, paradoxical hemodynamic instability, and length of stay.