Best management of patients with malignant pericardial effusion: A comparative study between imaging-guided pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardial window
Background: The clinical course of malignancies is frequently complicated by third-spacing in body cavities, including pericardial effusion. What remains the optimal management for malignant pericardial effusion, is a dilemma.
Aim: We aimed to compare 30-day outcomes of imaging-guided pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardial window in patients with malignant pericardial effusion.
Methods: A retrospective observational study was done at a tertiary care hospital. We reviewed hospital record files of 91 consecutive patients admitted with malignant pericardial effusion from January 2010 to December 2019 and requiring imaging-guided pericardiocentesis or pericardial window.
Results: A total of 71 patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients were male (68%). The mean age was 45 years. Hypertension was the most common comorbid condition. Lymphoma or leukemia (39%) was the most common cause of malignant pericardial effusion followed by lung cancer (28%). 57.7% of patients underwent pericardiocentesis, and the remainder underwent surgical pericardial window (42.3%). The overall procedural success was 97.2%, and the overall mortality was 5.6%. The success rate was similar when pericardiocentesis was compared with the surgical pericardial window (p = 0.22). The length of hospital stay was higher in patients undergoing pericardial window (p = 0.007), whereas the re-accumulation rate was higher in the pericardiocentesis group (0% versus 34%, p < 0.001). Patients undergoing pericardial window had higher odds of major bleeding requiring transfusions.
Conclusion: There is a higher rate of recurrence following isolated pericardiocentesis but a comparable mortality difference between the two procedures. Complication rates can be reduced by improving surgical technique and peri-operative management. Meticulous surgical care, infection precautions, and good glycemic control in this immunocompromised sub-set can preserve the pericardial window as a better management option.
Relevance for patients: Pericardial window is a promising and effective management option for patients with recurrent malignant pericardial effusion, but it comes at the cost of bleeding and infection. More extensive trials are needed to understand better the long-term outcomes of pericardial window or pericardiocentesis in patients with malignant effusion.
[1] Braunwald E, Zipes DP, Libby P. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company; 2021.
[2] Kabukcu M, Demircioglu F, Yanik E, Basarici I, Ersel F. Pericardial Tamponade and Large Pericardial Effusions: Causal Factors and Efficacy of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage in 50 Patients. Tex Heart Inst J 2004;31:398-403.
[3] Beck CS. Two Cardiac Compression Triads. J Am Med Assoc 1935;104:714-6.
[4] Guntheroth WG, Morgan BC, Mullins GL. Effect of Respiration on Venous Return and Stroke Volume in Cardiac Tamponade. Mechanism of Pulsus Parodoxus. Circ Res 1967;20:381-90.
[5] Reddy PS, Curtiss EI, Uretsky BF. Spectrum of Hemodynamic Changes in Cardiac Tamponade. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:1487-91.
[6] Singh S, Wann LS, Schuchard GH, Klopfenstein HS, Leimgruber PP, Keelan MH Jr., et al. Right Ventricular and Right Atrial Collapse in Patients with Cardiac Tamponade- -A Combined Echocardiographic and Hemodynamic Study. Circulation 1984;70:966-71.
[7] Adler Y, Charron P, Imazio M, Badano L, Barón-Esquivias G, Bogaert J, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Endorsed By: The European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2015;36:2921-64.
[8] Maggiolini S, Gentile G, Farina A, De Carlini CC, Lenatti L, Meles E, et al. Safety, Efficacy, and Complications of Pericardiocentesis by Real-time Echomonitored Procedure. Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1369-74.
[9] Baqi A, Ahmed I. Pericardiocentesis Indications and Complications: A Retrospective Observational Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital in karachi, Pakistan. Cureus 2020;12:e10102.
[10] Chang HM, Okwuosa TM, Scarabelli T, Moudgil R, Yeh ET. Cardiovascular Complications of Cancer Therapy: Best Practices in Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management: Part 2. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2552-65.
[11] Dogan SE, Mizrak D, Alkan A, Demirkazik A. Docetaxelinduced Pericardial Effusion. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2017;23:389-91.
[12] Tsang TS, Seward JB, Barnes ME, Bailey KR, Sinak LJ, Urban LH, et al. Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Treatment of Pericardial Effusion in Patients with Malignancy. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:248-53.
[13] Virk SA, Chandrakumar D, Villanueva C, WolfendenH, Liou K, Cao C. Systematic Review of Percutaneous Interventions for Malignant Pericardial Effusion. 2015;101:1619-26.
[14] Horr SE, Mentias A, Houghtaling PL, Toth AJ, Blackstone EH, Johnston DR, et al. Comparison of Outcomes of Pericardiocentesis Versus Surgical Pericardial Window in Patients Requiring Drainage of Pericardial Effusions. Am J Cardiol 2017;120:883-90.
[15] Cullinane CA, Paz IB, Smith D, Carter N, Grannis FW Jr. Prognostic Factors in the Surgical Management of Pericardial Effusion in the Patient with Concurrent Malignancy. Chest 2004;125:1328-34.