↓ Skip to main content

Low-Pressure Pericardial Tamponade: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Emergency Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Low-Pressure Pericardial Tamponade: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Published in
Journal of Emergency Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.05.069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brooks M Walsh, Lauren A Tobias

Abstract

Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is accurate for determining the presence of a pericardial effusion. Using FoCUS to evaluate for pericardial tamponade, however, is more involved. Many experts teach that tamponade is unlikely if the inferior vena cava (IVC) shows respiratory variation and is not distended. A 53-year-old woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with severe orthostatic hypotension, exertional dyspnea, and hypoxia. The evaluation did not reveal an acute cardiopulmonary etiology, but FoCUS demonstrated a pericardial effusion, with several signs consistent with tamponade. The IVC, however, was not distended. She was believed to be hypovolemic, but fluid therapy provided minimal benefit. The patient's condition improved only after aspiration of the effusion. The patient's presentation was likely a "low-pressure" pericardial tamponade. Patients with this subset of tamponade often do not have significant venous congestion, but urgent pericardial aspiration is still indicated. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Pericardial tamponade may not manifest with IVC plethora on ultrasound. Patients with low-pressure tamponade do not present with the most florid signs of tamponade, but they nonetheless fulfill diagnostic criteria for tamponade. If a non-plethoric IVC is used to rule out tamponade, the clinician risks delaying comprehensive echocardiography or other tests. Furthermore, the potential for deterioration to frank shock could be discounted, with inappropriate disposition and monitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 20%
Other 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#2,358
of 3,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,648
of 415,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#34
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 415,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.