PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided and fluoroscopically guided percutaneous @entity2294 drainage as performed by interventional radiologists in @entity1 with symptomatic @entity2294 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2002 to December 2013, 93 @entity1 were treated with percutaneous @entity2294 drainage. Pericardial effusion drainage was performed via 3 routes: apical, subxiphoid, and transhepatic routes. After puncturing the pericardial sac with a 22-gauge needle under ultrasound guidance, a drainage catheter was inserted under fluoroscopic guidance. Pericardial effusion was categorized according to its distribution in the pericardial cavity: "circumferential even," "circumferential uneven" (predominant site specified), and "loculated." Technical success, recurrence, and complication rates were assessed. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 99%. Pericardial effusion drainage was performed via the subxiphoid approach in 54 procedures, transhepatic approach in 30 procedures, and apical approach in 13 procedures. The transhepatic approach was mainly performed in cases where the effusion was distributed posteriorly to the heart (80%). One @entity1 died of uncontrolled @entity551 without evidence of @entity2294 . CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided and fluoroscopically guided @entity2294 drainage is a safe and effective procedure for @entity1 with symptomatic @entity2294 . The transhepatic approach may be preferable for posteriorly distributed @entity2294 that would otherwise be inaccessible by a traditional subxiphoid or apical approach.

Percutaneous Pericardial Effusion Drainage under Ultrasonographic and Fluoroscopic Guidance for Symptomatic Pericardial Effusion: A Single-Center Experience in 93 Consecutive XXXX .

@entity2294 :: ('MESH:D010490', 'Disease') :: ['hemopericardium', 'pericardial effusion'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity551 :: ('MESH:D007022', 'Disease') :: ['hypotension']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['Patients']
