COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

"Blind" pericardiocentesis: A comparison of different puncture directions

Nils Petri, Babett Ertel, Tobias Gassenmaier, Björn Lengenfelder, Thorsten A Bley, Wolfram Voelker
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2018 November 1, 92 (5): E327-E332
29737598

BACKGROUND: "Blind" pericardiocentesis is the standard procedure for emergency pericardial drainage when ultrasound guidance is unavailable. Under these circumstances, puncture site and needle direction are exclusively oriented according to certain anatomic landmarks. In the literature, different techniques for this "blind" method have been described. Goal of this retrospective study was to compare the potential success and complication rate of 13 simulated puncture directions.

METHODS: Simulated pericardiocentesis was performed in 150 CT scans from patients with moderate to severe pericardial effusions (greater than 1 cm distance between epicardium and pericardium). Thirteen different puncture techniques with varying puncture sites, direction of the puncture, and the angle were compared. A simulated pericardiocentesis was classified as "successful" when the effusion was reached. It was classified as "successful without a complication" when no adjacent structure was penetrated by the simulated puncture (lung, liver, internal thoracic artery, LAD, colon, and stomach). An attempt was declared as "unsuccessful" when the pericardial effusion was not reached at all, or the reached effusion measured less than 0.5 cm between the epicardium and pericardium at the location where the needle entered the pericardium.

RESULTS: A subxiphoidal puncture technique starting in Larrey's triangle (sternocostal triangle) and directed toward the left midclavicular point with a 30° inclination resulted in the highest success rate (131 of 150 cases = 87%). In parallel the lowest complication rate (7 of 150 = 5%) was found using this technique, as well. In contrast, pericardiocentesis performed using other puncture directions resulted in lower success (66%-85%) and higher complication rates (9%-31%).

CONCLUSION: This CT-based simulation study revealed that blind pericardiocentesis guided by anatomical landmarks only is best performed in a subxiphoid approach with a needle direction to the left midclavicular point with a 30° inclination. Nevertheless, injury of adjacent structures occurred frequently (5%) even when applying this puncture technique. Thus, blind pericardiocentesis can be performed with a high success rate and seems adequate to be performed under emergency conditions. However, planned procedures should be performed under image guidance.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
29737598
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.