Pericardiocentesis versus window formation in malignant pericardial effusion: trends and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) in patients with cancer is associated with poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes in patients with cancer who underwent pericardiocentesis versus pericardial window formation. METHODS: In the present study, 765 consecutive patients with cancer (mean age 58.4 years, 395 men) who underwent pericardial drainage between 2003 and 2022 were retrospectively analysed. All-cause death and MPE recurrence were compared based on the drainage method (pericardiocentesis vs pericardial window formation) and time period (period 1: 2003-2012; period 2: 2013-2022). RESULTS: Pericardiocentesis was performed in 639 (83.5%) patients and pericardial window formation in 126 (16.5%). There was no difference in age, sex distribution, proportion of metastatic or relapsed cancer, and chemotherapy status between the pericardiocentesis and pericardial window formation groups. Difference was not found in all-cause death between the two groups (log-rank p=0.226) regardless of the period. The pericardial window formation group was associated with lower MPE recurrence than the pericardiocentesis group (6.3% vs 18.0%, log-rank p=0.001). This advantage of pericardial window formation was more significant in period 2 (18.1% vs 1.3%, log-rank p=0.005). In multivariate analysis, pericardial window formation was associated with lower MPE recurrence (HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.63, p=0.001); younger age, metastatic or relapsed cancer, and positive malignant cells in pericardial fluid were associated with increased recurrence. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing pericardial drainage for MPE, pericardial window formation showed mortality outcomes comparable with pericardiocentesis and was associated with lower incidence of MPE recurrence.

Post-cardiac injury syndrome and pericardial effusion recurrence after pericardial effusion drainage in chronic idiopathic pericardial effusion.

INTRODUCTION: The management of even large pericardial effusions in asymptomatic patients is still a matter of debate. Aim of the present study is to explore, in a multicenter setting, the rate of post-cardiac injury syndromes (PCIS) and pericardial effusion recurrence after pericardial effusion drainage procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multicenter international retrospective study including a consecutive cohort of patients diagnosed with large, chronic and idiopathic pericardial effusions, prospectively evaluated from January 2003 to December 2021 who underwent a clinically indicated pericardial drainage procedure. Two separate end-points were recorded: 1) recurrence of pericardial effusion after drainage without any sign of pericardial inflammation 2) occurrence of PCIS, defined as the new onset of pericarditis 1 to 6 weeks after pericardial intervention. RESULTS: 124 patients were enrolled (50 % female, mean age 64 years old). A mean follow-up of 29.6 ± 25.6 months was obtained in 110 patients (88 %). 110 patients were treated with pericardiocentesis (89 %), 25 with pleuro-pericardial windows (20 %), and 1 with pericardiectomy (1 %). PCIS occurred in 21 out of 124 patients followed for at least 6 weeks (16.9%). Recurrence of pericardial effusion after drainage without any sign of pericardial inflammation occurred in 68 out of 110 patients at a longer follow-up (61.8 %). At multivariate analysis only inflammatory cells in pericardial fluid was associated with PCIS and pericardiocentesis with pericardial effusion recurrency. CONCLUSION: Our data support the need of caution with the use of pericardiocentesis in asymptomatic patients with large pericardial effusion as it is often associated with pericardial effusion recurrence. Of interest the presence of inflammatory cells in the pericardial fluid is associated with PCIS after pericardial drainage procedures.

Effect of chest ultrasound compared with pericardial window for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac wounds in hemodynamically stable subjects with penetrating thoracic trauma: A meta-analysis.

We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of chest ultrasound compared with a pericardial window for the detection of occult penetrating cardiac wounds in patients with penetrating thoracic trauma who were hemodynamically stable. A systematic literature search up to December 2022 was performed and 567 related studies were evaluated. The chosen studies comprised 629 penetrating thoracic trauma subjects who participated in the selected studies' baseline. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of different chest ultrasounds on wound infection after penetrating thoracic trauma by the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed effect model. The chest ultrasound resulted in significantly lower occult penetrating cardiac wounds detection (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08, P < 0.001), higher false positive (OR, 33.85; 95% CI, 9.21-124.39, P < 0.001), and higher false negative (OR, 27.31; 95% CI, 7.62-97.86, P < 0.001) compared with the pericardial window in penetrating thoracic trauma. The chest ultrasound resulted in significantly lower occult penetrating cardiac wound detection, higher false positives, and higher false negatives compared with the pericardial window in penetrating thoracic trauma. Although care should be taken when dealing with the results because all of the studies had less than 200 subjects as a sample size.

A Simple Modified Technique of Pleuropericardial Window: Towards 0% Recurrence.

Recurrent pericardial effusion is commonly encountered in neoplastic and infective disorders. Intervention is compulsory in patients with unstable hemodynamics and tamponading effusion. Surgical options include: pericardiocentesis, subxiphoid pericardiostomy, and pericardial window. The latter has proved to have lower incidence of recurrence; however, the technique has been continuously refined to improve the recurrence-free survival and decrease postoperative morbidity. We herein present a novel simple modification to minimize recurrence by anchoring the free edges of pericardial fenestration overlying the superior vena cava and right atrium to the chest wall. Follow-up showed no recurrence compared to 3.5% in the conventional procedure.

Manejo conservador del hemopericardio por trauma: reporte de un caso / Conservative management of traumatic hemopericardium: Case report

Introducción. El trauma cardíaco penetrante es una patología con alta mortalidad, que alcanza hasta el 94 % en el ámbito prehospitalario y el 58 % en el intrahospitalario. El algoritmo internacional para los pacientes que ingresan con herida precordial, hemodinámicamente estables, es la realización de un FAST subxifoideo o una ventana pericárdica, según la disponibilidad del centro, y de ser positivo se procede con una toracotomía o esternotomía. Métodos. Se hizo una búsqueda bibliográfica en las bases de datos Medline, Pubmed, Science Direct y UpTodate, usando las palabras claves: "taponamiento cardíaco", "herida precordial" y "manejo no operatorio". Se tomaron los datos de la historia clínica y las imágenes, previa autorización del paciente. Caso clínico. Paciente masculino ingresó con herida en área precordial, estable hemodinámicamente, sin signos de sangrado activo, con FAST subxifoidea "dudosa". Se procedió a realizar ventana pericárdica, la cual fue positiva para hemopericardio de 150 ml; se evacuaron los coágulos del saco pericárdico, se introdujo sonda Nelaton 10 Fr para lavado con solución salina 500 ml, hasta obtener retorno de líquido claro. Frente al cese del sangrado y estabilidad del paciente se decidió optar por un manejo conservador, sin toracotomía. Conclusiones. No todos los casos de hemopericardio traumático por herida por arma cortopunzante requieren toracotomía. El manejo conservador con ventana pericárdica, drenaje de hemopericardio más lavado y dren es una opción en aquellos pacientes que se encuentran estables hemodinámicamente y no se evidencia sangrado activo posterior al drenaje del hemopericardio.

Introduction. Penetrating cardiac trauma is a pathology with high mortality, reaching up to 94% in the prehospital and 58% in the hospital settings. The international algorithm for patients who are admitted to the hospital with a precordial wound and who are hemodynamically stable is to perform a subxiphoid FAST echo or a pericardial window according to the availability of the center and, if positive, proceed to perform thoracotomy or sternotomy. Methods. A literature search was made in the Medline, Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and UpTodate biomedical databases, using the keywords "cardiac tamponade", "precordial wound" and "non-operative management". The data was taken from the clinical history, the images and the surgical procedure. Clinical case. Male patient who was admitted to the emergency room due to a wound in the precordial area, hemodynamically stable without signs of active bleeding, with subxiphoid FAST that is reported as "doubtful". We proceeded to perform a pericardial window which is positive for 150 ml hemopericardium, evacuation of clots from the pericardial sac, inserted a 10 Fr Nelaton catheter and washed with 500 ml saline solution until the return of clear fluid was obtained. In view of the cessation of bleeding and the stability of the patient, it was decided to opt for a conservative management and not to perform a thoracotomy. Conclusions. Not all cases of traumatic hemopericardium from a sharp injury require thoracotomy. Conservative management with pericardial window drainage of the hemopericardium plus lavage and drain is an option in those patients who are hemodynamically stable and there is no evidence of active bleeding after drainage of the hemopericardium.

Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy: efficacy in a series of malignant and nonmalignant cases.

OBJECTIVE: In the case of malignant pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade, balloon pericardiotomy is an established minimally invasive option to the surgical creation of a subxiphoid pericardial window. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy effectively drains recurrent pericardial fluid by creating a pleuro (-abdominal-) pericardial communication. Design. A series of 26 patients with underlying malignant (n = 12) and nonmalignant (n = 14) diseases underwent percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy between 2008 and 2021. All interventions were done through a subxiphoid access under local anesthesia. Results. The mean survival in the malignant and nonmalignant groups was 1.2 versus 48.0 months, respectively (p < .001). There were neither severe periinterventional complications nor in-hospital deaths. In two patients with nonmalignant disease the surgical creation of a pericardial window was necessary during follow-up. The originally described procedure was modified by the removal of all catheters at the end of the intervention. The procedure was safe. It prevented immobility and facilitated an early discharge from the hospital. Conclusion. Our experiences show that percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy is a minimally invasive approach to successfully provide palliation in the group of patients with underlying malignant disease. On the other hand, we have shown that this technique is safe and feasible in the treatment of pericardial effusion based on nonmalignant disease. We think thereby that pericardial balloon pericardiotomy can be considered as a less invasive alternative to surgery in both groups of patients.

The Role of Pericardial Window Techniques in the Management of Penetrating Cardiac Injuries in the Hemodynamically Stable Patient: Where Does It Fit in the Current Trauma Algorithm?

INTRODUCTION: Penetrating cardiac injuries (PCIs) have high in-hospital mortality rates. Guidelines regarding the use of pericardial window (PW) for diagnosis and treatment of suspected PCIs are not universally established. The objective of this review was to provide a critical appraisal of the current literature to determine the effectiveness and safety of PW as both a diagnostic and therapeutic technique for suspected PCIs in patients with hemodynamic stability. METHODS: A review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase to identify literature evaluating the accuracy and therapeutic efficacy of PW and its role in a hemodynamically stable patient with penetrating thoracic or thoracoabdominal trauma. RESULTS: Eleven studies evaluating diagnostic PW and two studies evaluating therapeutic PW were included. These studies ranged from (y) 1977 to 2018. Existing literature indicates that PW is highly sensitive (92%-100%) and specific (96%-100%) for the diagnosis of suspected PCIs. PW and drainage, when compared with sternotomy, may be associated with decreased total hospital stay (4.1 versus 6.5 d; P < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (0.25 versus 2.04 d; P < 0.001) along with similar mortality and complication rates after the management of hemopericardium. CONCLUSIONS: In a hemodynamically stable patient presenting with penetrating cardiac trauma with a high suspicion for PCI, PWs can (1) facilitate prompt diagnosis in the event of equivocal ultrasonography findings and (2) serve as an effective therapeutic modality with the benefit of potentially avoiding more invasive procedures. Subxiphoid, transdiaphragmatic, and laparoscopic approaches for PW have been shown to have similar efficacy and safety.

Cardiac tamponade following post-pericardiotomy syndrome.

SUMMARY: Subxyphoid pericardial window (SPW) is performed as both a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention in patients presenting with a penetrating cardiac injury (PCI). Post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS) with cardiac tamponade has been reported after penetrating cardiac trauma and after transdiaphragmatic pericardial window. We describe the first PPS with acute tamponade, weeks after diagnostic SPW for a PCI.

Pericardial-Peritoneal Window as an Alternative Treatment for Large and Recurrent Pericardial Effusion Post-Pericardiotomy

Abstract Introduction: The presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery is common and oral medical therapy is usually able to treat it. Larger effusions are less frequent and surgical intervention is usually necessary. However, there are some rare cases of large effusions that are recurrent even after intervention and become challenging to treat. Methods: We describe the case of a patient submitted to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without any intraoperative complications, who was regularly discharged from the hospital. She was referred to our emergency department twice after surgery with large pericardial effusion that was drained. Even after those two interventions and with adequate oral medication, the large effusion recurred. Results: During follow-up, the patient had her symptoms resolved, with no need for further hospital admission. Her echocardiograms after the last intervention showed no pericardial effusion. The present surgical technique demonstrated to be easy to perform, thus it should be considered as a treatment option for these rare cases of large and repetitive effusions, which do not respond to the traditional methods. Conclusions: In challenging cases of recurrent and large pericardial effusions, the pericardial-peritoneal window is an alternative surgical technique that brings clinical improvement and diminishes the risk of cardiac tamponade.

Damage control in penetrating cardiac trauma.

Definitive management of hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating cardiac injuries remains controversial between those who propose aggressive invasive care versus those who opt for a less invasive or non-operative approach. This controversy even extends to cases of hemodynamically unstable patients in which damage control surgery is thought to be useful and effective. The aim of this article is to delineate our experience in the surgical management of penetrating cardiac injuries via the creation of a clear and practical algorithm that includes basic principles of damage control surgery. We recommend that all patients with precordial penetrating injuries undergo trans-thoracic ultrasound screening as an integral component of their initial evaluation. In those patients who arrive hemodynamically stable but have a positive ultrasound, a pericardial window with lavage and drainage should follow. We want to emphasize the importance of the pericardial lavage and drainage in the surgical management algorithm of these patients. Before this concept, all positive pericardial windows ended up in an open chest exploration. With the coming of the pericardial lavage and drainage procedure, the reported literature and our experience have shown that 25% of positive pericardial windows do not benefit and/or require further invasive procedures. However, in hemodynamically unstable patients, damage control surgery may still be required to control ongoing bleeding. For this purpose, we propose a surgical management algorithm that includes all of these essential clinical aspects in the care of these patients.

El manejo definitivo de los pacientes hemodinámicamente estables con heridas cardíacas penetrantes continúa siendo controversial con abordajes invasivos versus manejos conservadores. Estas posiciones contrarias se extienden hasta aquellos casos de pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables donde se ha descrito y considerado la cirugía de control de daños como un procedimiento útil y efectivo. El objetivo de este artículo es presentar la experiencia en el manejo quirúrgico de heridas cardíacas penetrantes con la creación de un algoritmo práctico que incluye los principios básicos del control de daños. Se recomienda que a todos los pacientes con heridas precordiales penetrantes se les debe realizar un ultrasonido torácico como componente integral de la evaluación inicial. Aquellos que presenten un ultrasonido torácico positivo y se encuentren hemodinámicamente estables se les debe realizar una ventana pericárdica con posterior lavado. Se ha demostrado que el 25% de las ventanas pericárdicas positivas no se benefician ni requieren de posteriores abordajes quirúrgicos invasivos. Antes de este concepto, todos los pacientes con ventana pericárdica positiva terminaban en una exploración abierta del tórax y del pericárdico.Los pacientes hemodinámicamente inestables requieren de una cirugía de control de daños para un adecuado y oportuno control del sangrado. Con este propósito, se propone un algoritmo de manejo quirúrgico que incluye todos estos aspectos esenciales en el abordaje de este grupo de pacientes.

Incarcerated Small-Bowel Pericardial Diaphragmatic Hernia After Pericardio-Peritoneal Window Creation: Report of a Rare Case.

BACKGROUND Pericardio-peritoneal windows are surgically created to treat symptomatic pericardial effusion, usually of oncological origin, to alleviate cardiac tamponade-like symptoms. Common complications include infection, failure to drain the fluid correctly, and arrythmias. There are few published cases of intra-abdominal complications due to these interventions. This report discusses pericardial diaphragmatic incarcerated hernia, which is one such complication. CASE REPORT We report the case of an 84-year-old woman with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma, who recently underwent surgery to create a pericardio-peritoneal window to treat a chronic malignant pericardial effusion. The patient presented in our Emergency Department because of abdominal pain with absence of flatus and stool for more than 4 days. Computed tomography scanning confirmed a proximal small-bowel obstruction due to incarcerated small bowel into the pericardial window. Reduction of the hernia was performed laparoscopically. After a bowel viability assessment by indocyanine green angiography, the pericardial window was covered by a noncovered macroporous mesh to avoid recurrence and to allow continuous pericardial fluid drainage. CONCLUSIONS In case of abdominal pain after the creation of a pericardio-peritoneal window, we suggest the prompt use of computed tomography after initial examination. Indeed, although rare, a pericardial diaphragmatic hernia is possible and requires surgical exploration if there is a risk of bowel strangulation. The operation can be done laparoscopically, and the hernia repair should involve the placement of a nonabsorbable and noncovered macroporous mesh. This should prevent hernia recurrence, while also allowing adequate drainage of the pericardial effusion.

Pericardial-Peritoneal Window as an Alternative Treatment for Large and Recurrent Pericardial Effusion Post-Pericardiotomy.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery is common and oral medical therapy is usually able to treat it. Larger effusions are less frequent and surgical intervention is usually necessary. However, there are some rare cases of large effusions that are recurrent even after intervention and become challenging to treat. METHODS: We describe the case of a patient submitted to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without any intraoperative complications, who was regularly discharged from the hospital. She was referred to our emergency department twice after surgery with large pericardial effusion that was drained. Even after those two interventions and with adequate oral medication, the large effusion recurred. RESULTS: During follow-up, the patient had her symptoms resolved, with no need for further hospital admission. Her echocardiograms after the last intervention showed no pericardial effusion. The present surgical technique demonstrated to be easy to perform, thus it should be considered as a treatment option for these rare cases of large and repetitive effusions, which do not respond to the traditional methods. CONCLUSIONS: In challenging cases of recurrent and large pericardial effusions, the pericardial-peritoneal window is an alternative surgical technique that brings clinical improvement and diminishes the risk of cardiac tamponade.

Pericardial Effusions in Patients With Cancer: Anesthetic Management and Survival Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe practice patterns of anesthetic management during pericardial window creation. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 150 patients treated for cancer between 2011 and 2015 were included in the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary objective was to evaluate anesthetic management in pericardial window creation. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and overall survival after pericardial window creation. Thirty-day mortality was 19.3%, and median survival was 5.84 months. Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of patients was associated with preinduction arterial line placement (51% ASA 3 v 79% ASA 4; p = 0.002) and use of etomidate for anesthetic induction (34% ASA 3 v 60% ASA 4; p = 0.003). However, there was no association between anesthetic management and presence of tamponade in these patients. Cardiac aspirate volume (per 10 mL: odds ratio [OR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.0-1.04]; p = 0.026) and intraoperative arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation: OR, 6.76 [95% CI, 1.2-37.49]; p = 0.029; sinus tachycardia: OR, 4.59 [95% CI, 1.25-16.90]; p = 0.022) were associated independently with increased 30-day mortality. High initial heart rate (per 10 beats per minute: hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05-1.33]; p = 0.005) in the operating room and intraoperative sinus tachycardia (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.15-3.03]; p = 0.012) were associated independently with worse overall survival. CONCLUSION: Risk of death after pericardial window creation remains high in patients with cancer. Variations in anesthetic management did not affect survival in oncologic patients with pericardial effusions.

Single center experience of pediatric percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy is a percutaneous procedure that creates a window in the parietal pericardium by balloon dilation. The use of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy has not been reported well in children. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the single centre experience of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy in children. METHODS: This was a retrospective study to describe all the children aged <20 years undergoing percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy during an 18-year period (2001-2019). Patient characteristics, technical and ultimate procedural success, and repeat interventions were collected. RESULTS: A total of 13 percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy's were performed in 11 children at the median age of 12 years (range 1.8-19). The etiologies of pericardial effusion were post-pericardiotomy syndrome (n = 4), restrictive cardiomyopathy (n = 1), autoimmune diseases (n = 3), malignancy (n = 2), and idiopathic (n = 1). Two patients received two percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy. The technical success of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy was 100% with no acute adverse events (balloon rupture or local bleeding). Five (45%) required re-intervention and ultimately three required a surgical pericardial window 6 to 35 days after the percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy. As a result, ultimate procedural success rate was 73% (8/11). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy was performed safely with high technical success in children. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy may be considered for recurrent and persistent pericardial effusion, before considering a surgical pericardial window.