🫀 Are we measuring pericardial effusions the wrong way? We routinely classify pericardial effusions as small, moderate, or large based on linear measurements. But does a single measurement in millimeters accurately represent the actual volume of pericardial fluid? Study in @JournalASEcho challenges this onlinejase.com/article/S0894… 🔬 245 patients undergoing pericardiocentesis Median drained volume: 500 mL (range 50–4,300 mL) 76.7% had cardiac tamponade Actual drained volume served as the reference standard. 📊 How did different echo methods perform? Between end diastolic thickness, plax and PSAx area- apical 4 chamber Simpson’s volumetric estimation performed the best ✅ Accuracy: 80.4% vs 49.4% Perhaps it is time to rethink how we quantify pericardial effusions! 💡 if volumetric assessment is substantially more accurate, should we move from millimeters to milliliters in routine echocardiography? And more importantly, would this change clinical decision-making—or simply improve the precision of our reports? #EchoFirst #CardioTwitter #CVImaging