2020
DOI: 10.5114/kitp.2020.102337
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Our experience of total pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis: a comprehensive analysis over a period of 5 years

Abstract: Introduction Constrictive pericarditis (CP) usually presents as a result of chronic fibrous pericardial thickening and calcification of the pericardium which causes reduced cardiac output. Despite the lack of prospective studies comparing the different therapeutic strategies, surgical pericardiectomy is a valuable treatment under most circumstances. Aim We analyzed our records to highlight the predictors of morbidity and mortality of pericardiectomy and also short-term … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
(4 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pooled result shows lower but insignificant in-hospital mortality in comparison to one-year mortality in patients undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis (RR 0.59, CI [0.11,3.11], I2= 61%). Jadhao et al [ 15 ], Kang et al [ 2 ], Karima et al [ 13 ], Lin et al [ 9 ] are the studies evaluated in the forest plot.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The pooled result shows lower but insignificant in-hospital mortality in comparison to one-year mortality in patients undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis (RR 0.59, CI [0.11,3.11], I2= 61%). Jadhao et al [ 15 ], Kang et al [ 2 ], Karima et al [ 13 ], Lin et al [ 9 ] are the studies evaluated in the forest plot.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Postoperative hospital stays: The mean postoperative hospital stays in studies with mixed etiologies is 19.40 (11.93, 26.87) (Figure 12 ), with a mean standard deviation of 8.26 (4.21, 12.52) (Figure 13 ). Murat2015: Bicer et al [ 11 ], Tamallah2020: Karima et al [ 13 ], Manish2020: Jadhao et al [ 15 ], Yiyun2012: Lin et al [ 9 ], Se Hung Kang2014: Kang et al [ 2 ], Li: Zhang et al [ 8 ] are the studies used to evaluate the outcomes in studies with mixed etiologies.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%