• Vladimir Lakhter, Vikas Aggarwal, Riyaz Bashir, Brian O'Murchu, Howard A Cohen, and Brian P O'Neill.
• Temple University Hospital, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, 3401 N. Broad Street (9PP), Philadelphia, PA 19140 USA. Brian.O'neill@tuhs.temple.edu.
• J Invasive Cardiol. 2016 Oct 1; 28 (10): 397-402.

ObjectivesTo compare procedural success and safety of pericardiocentesis using continuous ultrasonographic visualization of a long (7 cm) micropuncture needle to standard access with an 18 gauge needle without continuous ultrasound guidance.BackgroundCurrent approaches to pericardiocentesis commonly utilize a large-bore 18 gauge needle for access without allowing for continuous visualization of needle entry into the pericardial space.MethodsWe included all consecutive patients at our institution who underwent pericardiocentesis between November 1, 2011 and March 3, 2016. A total of 21 patients (group 1) underwent pericardiocentesis using a 7 cm micropuncture needle inserted under continuous ultrasonographic guidance, while 51 patients (group 2) underwent pericardiocentesis, mostly with an 18 gauge needle (92%), following preprocedural echocardiography only. The primary endpoint was successful placement of a drain into the pericardial space.ResultsThe primary endpoint was similar between group 1 and group 2 (100% vs 94%, respectively; P=.26). Successful drainage of pericardial fluid was achieved in 95% of patients in group 1 and in 98% in group 2 (P=.88). The amount of pericardial fluid drained in each group was similar (640 mL vs 557 mL, respectively; P=.26). No procedure-related complications occurred in group 1, compared with 2 cases of right ventricular perforation that occurred in group 2. In-hospital mortality and length of stay were similar.ConclusionThis study suggests that an ultrasound-mounted micropuncture needle allows for safe and effective pericardiocentesis. This technique may provide a safer alternative to the standard use of an 18 gauge needle.

35 keywords...

hide…