Abstract
We report a case of persistent electrocardiographic ST-elevation following pericardiocentesis despite lack of evidence for transmural infarction or vasospasm. The electrocardiographic pattern was felt to reflect subepicardial injury due to a small myocardial laceration. The implications of this finding are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Miller JI (1986) Surgical management of pericardial disease. In: Hurst JW (ed) The Heart. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 2009
Wong B, Murphy J, Chang CJ, Hassenein K, Dunn M (1979) The risk of pericardiocentesis. Am J Cardiol 44:110
Bishop LH, Estes EH, McIntosh HD (1956) The electrocardiogram as a safeguard in pericardiocentesis. JAMA 62:264
Sobel SM, Thomas HM, Evans RW (1975) Myocardial laceration not demonstrated by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring occurring during pericardiocentesis. N Engl J Med 282:1222
Gueron M, Hirsch M, Wanderman K (1975) Myocardial laceration not shown by ECG during pericardiocentesis. N Engl J Med 293:938
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsia, H.H., Kander, N.H. & Shea, M.J. Persistent ST-segment elevation following pericardiocentesis: caution with thrombolytic therapy. Intensive Care Med 14, 77–79 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00254130
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00254130