↓ Skip to main content

Pericardial windows have limited diagnostic success

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pericardial windows have limited diagnostic success
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13019-018-0774-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Volk, Hirohisa Ikegami, Leonard Y. Lee, Anthony Lemaire

Abstract

Pericardial effusion (PE) is a common finding in patients who have chronic cardiac failure, who had undergone cardiac surgery, or who have certain other benign and malignant diseases. Pericardial drainage procedures are often requested for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The perceived benefit is that it allows for diagnosis of malignancy or infection for patients with PEs of unclear etiology. The purpose of the study is to determine the diagnostic yield of surgical drainage procedures. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent surgical drainage procedures of PEs from July 1st, 2011 to January 1st, 2017 at a single institution. The variables included data on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative findings; morbidity; and survival. A total of 145 patients with an average age of 61 ± 5 and primarily men (53%) were evaluated. All of the surgical drainage procedures were performed through the sub-xiphoid approach. Twenty-five of the 145 patients (17.2%) had diagnostic findings in either the pericardial tissue or fluid. The cytology alone was diagnostic in 4.8% (N = 7) of patients with mixed findings including adenocarcinoma of the lung and breast. The pathology was diagnostic for cancer in 1.4% (N = 2) of patients with Melanoma and Lung cancer identified. The cytology and pathology were concordant in 4.0% (N = 6) identifying cancers that included mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Infection was identified in the pericardial fluid in 6.9% (N = 10) of the patients. Surgical pericardial drainage procedures allow for removal of PE that may lead to tamponade physiology and potential mortality. Although there is therapeutic benefit from these procedures there is only a small diagnostic benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Psychology 2 17%
Unspecified 1 8%
Materials Science 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#649
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,404
of 329,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#23
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.