MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414203396 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32090514

In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion with and Without Malignancy

2025· article· en· W4414203396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ju Young Bae, Dae Yong Park, Soumya Banna, Jiun‐Ruey Hu, Amr Saleh, Mamas A. Mamas, Robert L. McNamara, Michael G. Nanna, John F. Setaro, Luke K. Kim, S. Elissa Altin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPericardiocentesisMalignancyPericardial effusionRetrospective cohort studyPercutaneousCohortConfidence intervalPericardial window

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite the high prevalence of malignant pericardial effusions (MPEs), the differences in mortality between those undergoing pericardiocentesis for MPE versus non-malignancy pericardial effusions (NMPEs) are not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we aim to compare clinical outcomes following pericardiocentesis among patients with MPE and NMPE. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify all hospitalizations during which pericardiocentesis was performed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 (total n = 174,776,205). This cohort was further stratified based on the presence or absence of malignancy. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition (categorized as non-home discharges), length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. Results: A total of 85,125 patients with pericardial effusions undergoing pericardiocentesis were identified. Patients with an MPE (n = 24,740) were younger and more likely to have a history of malnutrition, prior radiation, palliative care treatments, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders compared to those with an NMPE (n = 60,385). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy (40.3%) in patients with an MPE requiring pericardiocentesis. The in-hospital mortality following pericardiocentesis was 11.8% in patients with malignancy and 8.2% in patients without (odds ratio (OR) for mortality 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–1.68, p < 0.001). Lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, esophageal cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia were associated with a significantly increased risk of death during the same admission. Non-home discharge, length of stay, and total hospitalization cost were marginally greater in those with an MPE. Conclusions: In patients undergoing pericardiocentesis, those with an MPE had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with an NMPE. Additionally, the MPE group had a marginally longer length of stay and incurred higher total hospital costs. Further research is warranted to explore optimal treatment strategies for MPEs, particularly in patients with a limited life expectancy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207