A novel application of contrast echocardiography to exclude active coronary perforation bleeding in patients with pericardial effusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of hemodynamically significant cardiac tamponade will most often require pericardial drainage. In the absence of hemodynamic evidence of tamponade, however, management of a pericardial effusion represents a clinical dilemma. Pericardial leakage of blood may be transient, and extravasation may have stopped by time of echocardiographic assessment. Besides its usefulness in ischemic heart disease, contrast echocardiography might be applied in the context of coronary perforations. We report the use of contrast echocardiography in four cases of coronary perforation without overt signs of cardiac tamponade as a tool to streamline decision making as to whether perform pericardiocentesis or not. Our series demonstrate the clinical utility and effectiveness of echocardiographic contrast imaging to confirm or exclude active bleeding into the pericardial space when not otherwise visible by conventional imaging measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".