Unveiling the causes of pericardial effusion in a contemporary case series of pericardiocentesis in Latin America.

Pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis have multiple causes that vary among geographical regions and health contexts. This procedure can be performed for diagnostic or therapeutic indications. The purpose of this study was to identify the principal causes of pericardial effusions and indications for pericardiocentesis, exploring differences among groups. This was a retrospective case series of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion in a single center in Latin America. Demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural variables were recorded and analyzed. The primary outcome was to determine the causes of pericardial effusions in these patients and the indication (diagnostic, therapeutic, or both). The results are presented in two groups (inflammatory and noninflammatory) according to the cause of the pericardial effusion. One hundred sixteen patients with pericardial effusion underwent pericardiocentesis. The median age was 58 years (IQR 46.2-70.7), and 50% were male. In the noninflammatory pericardial effusion group, there were 61 cases (53%), among which neoplastic pericardial effusion was the most frequent cause (n = 25, 40.9%). In the inflammatory group, there were 55 cases (47%), and the main cause was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery (n = 31, 56.4%). In conclusion, the principal indication for pericardiocentesis was therapeutic (n = 66, 56.8%). Large pericardial effusion without hemodynamic effect of cardiac tamponade was significantly more frequent in the inflammatory group (p = 0.03). The principal cause of pericardial effusion in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery, followed by neoplastic pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis is mainly a therapeutic procedure.

Comparison of Pericardiocentesis in Post-Cardiac Surgery and Nonsurgical Patients with Pericardial Tamponade.

INTRODUCTION: There are several approaches for pericardiocentesis. However, there is no definite suggestion about puncture location after cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study is to examine whether there is any difference regarding puncture location during pericardiocentesis in postoperative cardiac tamponade comparing to nonsurgical cardiac tamponade. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who had undergone pericardiocentesis from August 2011 to December 2019. Patients were examined in two groups, nonsurgical and postsurgical, based on the etiology of pericardial tamponade. Clinical profiles, echocardiographic findings, and procedural outcomes were identified and compared. RESULTS: Sixty-eight pericardiocenteses were performed in this period. The etiology of pericardial effusion was cardiac surgery in 27 cases and nonsurgical medical conditions in 41 cases. Baseline demographic variables were similar between the surgical and nonsurgical groups. Loculated effusion was more common in the postsurgical group (48.1% vs. 4.9%, P<0.001). Maximal fluid locations were different between the groups; right ventricular location was more common in the nonsurgical group (36.6% vs. 11.1%, P=0.02), while lateral location was more common in the postsurgical group (12.2% vs. 40.7%, P=0.007). Apical drainage was more frequently performed in the postsurgical group compared to the nonsurgical group (77.8% vs. 53.7%, P=0.044). CONCLUSION: Apical approach as a puncture location can be used more frequently than subxiphoid approach for effusions occurred after cardiac surgery compared to nonsurgical effusions. Procedural success is prominent in this group and can be the first choice of treatment.

Effectiveness and prognosis of initial pericardiocentesis in the primary management of malignant pericardial effusion.

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 100 patients with malignant disease and symptomatic pericardial effusion initially treated with pericardiocentesis at the National Cancer Institute of Mexico between 1985 and 2009. We analyzed predictive factors for recurrence of pericardial effusion by bi- and multivariate analyses. The group comprised 74 women and 26 men. Twenty patients had developed malignant pericardial effusion at the time of primary cancer diagnosis. Recurrence rate after pericardiocentesis was 33%. Progression-free survival for pericardial effusion at one year was 59% (range, 47-71%). Median overall survival (OS) after pericardiocentesis was 40.3+/-7.9 weeks (95% Confidence interval, 24.9-55.7). The sole factor that correlated with increased progression-free survival for pericardial effusion was the presence of bloody pericardial effusion. For OS, multivariate analysis yielded that female gender and presence of pericardial effusion at time of primary malignancy diagnosis were associated with higher life expectancy. Initial pericardiocentesis can provide successful management of patients with a control rate of 67%. In spite of the high effectiveness of the primary management of pericardial effusion with pericardiocentesis in oncologic patients, it might be considered for initial treatment, especially those with poor prognosis, leaving pericardial window as a secondary strategy for recurrence.