Comparison of open subxiphoid pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for symptomatic pericardial effusion

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.

Comparing Outcomes of CT-Guided Percutaneous Pericardial Drainage with Surgical Pericardial Window in Patients with Symptomatic Pericardial Effusions

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare short-term outcomes of CT-guided percutaneous pericardial drainage (PPD) versus subxiphoid surgical pericardial window (PW) drainage and analyze the risk factors associated with their outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent either percutaneous drainage with drainage catheter placement or PW with surgical drain placement for symptomatic pericardial effusion between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2016 was performed after institutional review board approval (decision number 16-783). The primary objective was to test for associations between the short-term (≤30 days post procedure) complication and recurrence rates in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusions. The secondary objectives were to test for associations between short-term complications with changes in vital signs.

RESULTS

Of the 257 procedures included in the final analysis, 142 were in the percutaneous drainage group. Short-term complication rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in patients undergoing PW, 17% (19/114), as compared with PPD, 2% (3/142). The estimated odds of having complications in the PW cohort was 9 times greater than the percutaneous drainage cohort (OR = 9.3, 95% CI:  2.7-32.3). No significant difference was observed between whether or not a patient experienced a short-term recurrence and any of the explanatory variables (patient demographics, imaging, and vital signs).

CONCLUSION

CT-guided PPD is a safer alternative to surgical PW as it leads to fewer complications without a significant difference in recurrence rate of pericardial effusion.

Pericardiectomy and Pericardial Window for the Treatment of Pericardial Disease in the Contemporary Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the contemporary practice of pericardiectomy and pericardial window. We discuss the indications, preoperative planning, procedural aspects, postprocedural management, and outcomes of each procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical approaches for the treatment of pericardial disease have been around even before the emergence of cardiopulmonary bypass. Since the forthcoming of cardiopulmonary bypass, there have been significant changes in the epidemiology and diagnostic approach of pericardial diseases as well as advancements in the surgical techniques and perioperative management used in the care of these patients. Pericardiectomy has an average mortality of almost 7% and is typically performed in patients with advanced symptoms from constrictive pericarditis and relatively few comorbidities. Pericardial window is a safe procedure for the treatment of pericardial effusion that can be performed with different approaches.

Pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage: A national comparison of clinical outcomes and resource use

Background

While institutional series have sought to define the optimal strategy for drainage of pericardial effusions, large-scale comparisons remain lacking. Using a nationally representative sample, the present study examined clinical and financial outcomes following pericardiocentesis (PC) and surgical drainage (SD) in patients admitted for pericardial effusion and tamponade.

Methods

Adults undergoing PC or SD within 2 days of admission for non-surgically related pericardial effusion or tamponade were identified in the 2016–2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multivariable logistic and linear models were developed to evaluate the association between intervention type and outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was mortality while secondary endpoints included reintervention, periprocedural complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs and 30-day non-elective readmission.

Results

Of an estimated 44,637 records meeting inclusion criteria, 28,862 (64.7%) underwent PC while the remainder underwent SD for initial management of pericardial effusion or tamponade. PC was associated with significantly increased odds of in-hospital mortality, reintervention and 30-day readmission relative to SD. PC was also associated with greater odds of cardiac complications but lower odds of infection, respiratory failure and blood transfusions compared to SD. Although PC was associated with shorter index hospital length of stay and costs, the two strategies yielded similar 30-day cumulative costs.

Conclusion

Management of pericardial effusion with PC is associated with greater odds of mortality, reintervention and 30-day readmission but similar 30-day cumulative costs compared to SD. In the setting of adequate hospital capability and operator expertise, SD is a reasonable initial treatment strategy for pericardial effusion.

Malignant cardiac tamponade: safety and efficacy of intrapericardial bleomycin instillation

BACKGROUND

Malignant cardiac tamponade is a life-threatening condition that requires prompt treatment and effective management to prevent recurrence. This paper describes safety and efficacy outcomes after intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin as well as possible predictors of survival.

METHODS

We performed a 10-year retrospective, single-center study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin in patients with suspected malignant cardiac tamponade.

RESULTS

Intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin was performed in 31 cancer patients (9 men, 22 women) presenting with cardiac tamponade. Non-fatal complications occurred in 3 patients and relapse occurred in 1 patient. Overall survival was less than 10% at the end of the study. Median survival was 104 days (95% CI, 0-251 days). Survival was compared between different groups (defined by primary tumor, type of tumor, TNM stage and results of cytological analysis) with median survival being considerably higher when oncologic therapy was altered afterwards.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of intrapericardial bleomycin instillation following pericardiocentesis for malignant cardiac tamponade is a safe procedure with a high success rate. Survival rates depend on further oncological treatment options available.

Comparison of the effectiveness of pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardiotomy in the prognosis of patients with blunt traumatic cardiac tamponade: a multicenter study using the Japan Trauma Data Bank

Aim

To compare the prognostic impact of pericardiocentesis (PCC) and surgical pericardiotomy (SP) in blunt traumatic pericardial tamponade.

Methods

Among 361,706 trauma patients registered in the Japan Trauma Data Bank from January 2004 to December 2018, we included those with blunt traumatic cardiac tamponade who underwent PCC and/or SP. We excluded patients with penetrating trauma, age younger than 15 years, Injury Severity Score (ISS) equal to 75, blood pressure 0 mmHg at the time of admission, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score 5 or more, and those with missing data for outcomes. To examine the effect of SP, patients were divided into a PCC group and an SP‐only group. Missing values of age, sex, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, pulse rate, time from emergency call to hospital arrival, head AIS, chest AIS, abdomen/pelvis AIS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and ISS were estimated using multiple imputation. In‐hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable analysis, and we undertook a survival analysis.

Results

We analyzed 305 patients, 150 (49.2%) in the PCC group and 155 (50.8%) in the SP‐only group. The in‐hospital mortality rate was 40.7% in the PCC group and 76.8% in the SP‐only group. Multivariable analysis after multiple imputation showed an odds ratio of SP for in‐hospital mortality 5.34 (95% confidence interval, 2.80–10.18; P < 0.01) compared with PCC. Using the Kaplan–Meier method, SP showed a significant risk of mortality (hazard ratio 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.58–2.95; P < 0.01).

Conclusions

In patients with blunt traumatic cardiac tamponade, SP was associated with poor prognosis.

Recurrence of pericardial effusion after different procedure modalities in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Lung cancer with related pericardial effusion is not rare. Intervention is a crucial step for symptomatic effusion. It is unknown, however, whether the different invasive interventions for pericardial effusion result in different survival outcomes. This study analyzed the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone different procedures.

Methods

From January 2006 to June 2018, we collected data from patients with NSCLC who have received invasive intervention for pericardial effusions. The patients were divided into three categories: simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy. Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test were used to analyze the pericardial effusion recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 244 patients were enrolled. Adenocarcinoma (83.6%) was the major NSCLC subtype. Invasive intervention, including simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy, had been carried out on 52, 170, and 22 patients, respectively. The 1-year RFS rates in simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy were 19.2%, 31.2%, and 31.8%, respectively (P = 0.128), and the median RFS was 1.67, 5.03, and 8.32 months, respectively (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in OS, however, with the median OS at 1.67, 6.43, and 8.32 months, respectively (P = 0.064). According to the multivariable analysis, the gravity in pericardial fluid analysis, receiving systemic therapy after pericardial effusion, and the time period from stage IV lung cancer to the presence of pericardial effusion were independent prognostic factors for pericardial effusion RFS and OS.

Conclusions

Patients who have undergone simple pericardiocentesis alone for the management of NSCLC-related pericardial effusion have lower 1-year RFS rates than those who have undergone balloon pericardiotomy and surgical pericardiectomy. Therefore, balloon pericardiotomy and surgical pericardiectomy should be carried out for patients with NSCLC-related pericardial effusion if tolerable.

•

This is the first study to compare the three common procedures to manage NSCLC-related pericardial effusion.

•

Simple pericardiocentesis group had lower 1-year RFS rate than balloon pericardiotomy or surgical pericardiectomy group.

•

Surgical pericardiectomy as management demonstrated an improving OS trend.

Laparoscopic transdiaphragmatic pericardial fenestration in palliative care: how I do it

BACKGROUND

The optimal therapeutic strategy for drainage of malignant pericardial effusion is not yet determined. Several techniques are described, with different benefits and disadvantages. The literature suggests that surgical drainage of pericardial effusions has less effusion recurrence; however, randomized controlled trials are not available. Due to the nature of the disease, quality of life should always be considered while making treatment decisions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients from November 2016 until June 2019 of our institution in the Netherlands was performed. All patients underwent laparoscopic pericardial fenestration after echocardiography and request for operative treatment by the cardiologist. The same operation technique was performed in every case.

RESULTS

Four out of five of our patients needed pericardial fenestration because of oncological diseases. No hemodynamically instability was noted during this fast technique, achieving direct relief of symptoms. No treatment-related morbidity or mortality, nor the need for re-intervention was encountered. We compared the outcome of our five patients with the existing evidence in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, we highlight the laparoscopic transdiaphragmatic pericardial fenestration as a treatment of preference in a non-acute palliative setting. This laparoscopic approach is safe, and can be a valuable alternative among the other well-known approaches.

Landmark Trials in the Surgical Management of Mesothelioma

The treatment of mesothelioma has evolved slowly over the last 20 years. While surgery as a standalone treatment has fallen out of favor, the importance of multimodality treatment consisting of combinations of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery have become more common in operable, fit patients. In this review, we discuss trials in surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation that have shaped contemporary multimodality treatment of this difficult malignancy, and we touch on the new and emerging immunotherapeutic and targeted agents that may change the future treatment of this disease. We also review the multimodality treatment regimens, with particular attention to trimodality therapy and neoadjuvant hemithoracic radiation strategies.

Effectiveness and outcomes of 2 therapeutic interventions for cardiac tamponade: A retrospective observational study

Pericardial effusions can either be drained by percutaneous pericardiocentesis (PCC) or by surgical pericardiotomy (SP), with limited evidence of superiority for the management of cardiac tamponade (CTa).This study uses the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to investigate the effectiveness of SP and PCC in patients with CTa in terms of clinical outcomes and healthcare costs.Retrospective observational study conducted on the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample 2014 dataset CTa patients. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to assess the impact of different procedures (none, SP, PCC, SP, and PCC) on mortality.A total of 10,410 CTa patients were included, of which 28.9% underwent no procedure, 32.9% underwent SP, 30.2% underwent PCC and 8.0% underwent SP and PCC. Mortality rates were highest in patients undergoing no procedure (22.3%) followed by PCC (15.0%), SP and PCC (11.5%), and then SP (9.6%) (P < .001). SP patients had longer length of stay (11.65 vs 8.16 days, P < .001) and higher total charges ($162,889.1 vs $100,802, P < .001) compared to PCC patients. Undergoing any procedure for CTa reduced the rate of mortality compared to no procedure with SP being the most effective (OR = 0.323, 95%CI 0.244-0.429), followed by SP & PCC (OR = 0.387, 95% CI 0.239-0.626), and then PCC (OR = 0.582, 95% CI 0.446-0.760).Adult CTa patients treated with SP had lower mortality rates but longer length of stay and higher healthcare expenses. This SP associated benefit remained consistent across different subpopulations after stratifying by age and potential disease etiology.

Mid-Term Efficacy of Subxiphoid Versus Transpleural Pericardial Window for Pericardial Effusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical technique for drainage of pericardial effusions is frequently debated. Transpleural drainage via thoracotomy or thoracoscopy is hypothesized to provide more durable freedom from recurrent pericardial effusion than a subxiphoid pericardial window. We sought to compare operative outcomes and mid-term freedom from recurrent effusion between both approaches in patients with nontraumatic pericardial effusions.

METHODS

All patients at our institution who underwent a pericardial window from 2001 to 2018 were identified. After excluding those who underwent recent cardiothoracic surgery or trauma, patients (n = 46) were stratified by surgical approach and presence of malignancy. Primary outcome was freedom from recurrent moderate or greater pericardial effusion. Secondary outcomes included operative mortality and morbidity and mid-term survival. Follow-up was determined by medical record review, with a follow-up of 67 patient-years. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare groups. Mid-term survival and freedom from effusion recurrence were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Subxiphoid windows (n = 31; 67%) were more frequently performed than transpleural windows (n = 15; 33%) and baseline characteristics were similar. Effusion etiologies included malignancy (n = 22; 48%), idiopathic (n = 12; 26%), uremia (n = 8; 17%), and collagen vascular disease (n = 4; 9%). Perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two surgical approaches, except for longer drain duration (7 versus 4 d, P = 0.029) in the subxiphoid group. Operative mortality was 19.6% overall and 36.4% in patients with malignancy. Mid-term survival and freedom from moderate or greater pericardial effusion recurrence was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19%-54%) and 69% (95% CI: 52%-86%) at 5 y, respectively. There was no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.90) or freedom from pericardial effusion recurrence (P = 0.70) between surgical approaches. Although malignant etiology had worse late survival (P < 0.01), freedom from effusion recurrence was similar to nonmalignant etiology (P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Pericardial window provides effective mid-term relief of pericardial effusion. Subxiphoid and transpleural windows are equivalent in mid-term efficacy and both surgical approaches can be considered. Patients with malignancy have acceptable operative mortality with low incidence of recurrent effusion, supporting palliative indications.

Cardiac Interventional Procedures in Cardio-Oncology Patients

Comorbidities specific to the cardio-oncology population contribute to the challenges in the interventional management of patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with cancer have generally been excluded from cardiovascular randomized clinical trials. Endovascular procedures may represent a valid option in patients with cancer with a range of CVDs because of their minimally invasive nature. Patients with cancer are less likely to be treated according to societal guidelines because of perceived high risk. This article presents the specific challenges that interventional cardiologists face when caring for patients with cancer and the modern tools to optimize care.

Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity

Purpose

Cardiothoracic surgeons are frequently called upon to perform surgical pericardial drainage procedures (pericardial window) for pericardial effusions. These procedures have therapeutic value, but the diagnostic value of such procedures is debated. We set out to determine the sensitivity of pericardial drainage to detect the disease when cytology, microbiology, and pathology are evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent pericardial windows from 1 July 2011 to 1 January 2018 at a single academic institution was conducted. All patients who had undergone a recent trauma or cardiac procedure were excluded. Cytology, microbiology, and pathology were examined. The charts were then carefully reviewed to determine if a clinical diagnosis was reached. Sensitivity was then calculated for all diseases and for those that should have been able to be detected.

Results

One hundred sixty‐two patients who had undergone a pericardial drainage procedure were identified; 49 patients were excluded for recent cardiac procedure or trauma. Of the 113 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 56 patients (49.6%) were female with a mean age of 59.7 ± 15.1 years. A diagnosis based on the pathology, microbiology, or cytology was obtained for 27 patients. The most common pathologies detected were adenocarcinoma (11), bacteremia (9), and small cell lung cancer (3); 56 patients had underlying pathologies that would have been possible to detect with either pathology, microbiology, or cytology. The most common detectable diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (20), bacteremia (12), and lymphoma (7). The most common undetectable diagnoses were idiopathic (17), cardiorenal fluid overload (17), and viral (11). The sensitivity of a pericardial drainage procedure for detecting disease was 0.24 for all cases, and 0.48 when restricted to cases where a detectable disease was present.

Conclusion

Cytology, microbiology, and pathology for pericardial drainage procedures were unable to detect a diagnosis for 76% of all cases and greater than 50% of cases with the theoretically detectable disease. Pericardial drainage procedures have a clear therapeutic value, but they have limited diagnostic utility.

Prognostic factors and nomogram for cancer-specific death in non small cell lung cancer with malignant pericardial effusion

Background

The prognosis of lung cancer with malignant pericardial effusion is very terrible owing to the impact of cardiac tamponade. The aim of our study seeks to identify prognostic factors and establish a prognostic nomogram of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with malignant pericardial effusion.

Methods

NSCLC patients with malignant pericardial effusion between 2010 and 2014 are searched from SEER database.Cancer-specific death of these patients are analyzed through the Kaplan–Meier method, Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk model. Prognostic nomogram of cancer-specific death is performed and validated with concordance index (C-index), calibration plots and internal validation population. Propensity score matching is used to evaluate whether chemotherapy affected the survival of study population.

Results

696 eligible NSCLC patients are involved in the study population, with 22.7% of 1-year survival rate and 8.9% of 2-year survival rate. Laterality, AJCC N, AJCC T, and chemotherapy are regarded as independent prognostic factors of cancer-specific death in the Cox proportional hazards model and competing risk model. The C-index of established nomogram is 0.703(95%CI:0.68–0.73) for cancer-specific death in the study population with acceptable calibration, which is significantly higher than classical TNM stage(C-index = 0.56, 95%CI:0.52–0.60). After 1:1 propensity score matching, chemotherapy potentially reduces the risk of cancer-specific death (HR = 0.42 95%CI: 0.31–0.58) of NSCLC with pericardial effusion.

Conclusions

NSCLC with malignant pericardial effusion harbors low overall survival. One prognostic nomogram based on laterality, AJCC N, AJCC T and chemotherapy is developed for cancer-specific death to predict 1-year and 2-year survival rate with good performance.

Evolution of the pericardiocentesis technique

: Pericardiocentesis is a valuable technique for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade, although it may be associated with potentially serious complications. Through the years, many different imaging approaches have been described to reduce the complication rate of the procedure. This systematic review provides a focused overview of the different techniques developed in recent years to reduce the procedural complications and to increase the related success rate.

Safety and Outcome of Percutaneous Drainage of Pericardial Effusions in Patients with Cancer

Malignancy is a common cause of pericardial effusions. The findings, immediate safety and longer-term outcomes of pericardiocentesis are less well defined. We reviewed the cases of all patients with malignancy that underwent pericardiocentesis at our institution over a 10-year period. From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016, 171 patients with cancer underwent echo-guided pericardiocentesis. A total of 53% were male with a mean age of 60 ± 15 years. The average volume drained was 485 (IQR 350 to 719) ml. The procedure was technically successful in 170/171 (99.4%) of patients without significant complications; there were no procedure-related deaths. A total of 20% had hemorrhagic, 48% had serosanguinous, and 31% serous pericardial effusions. The type of effusion was not associated with outcome. Cytology (measured in 164) was positive in 58% and only weakly related to outcome (median survival nine versus 18 weeks, p = 0.04). Per our institutional practice, a pericardial catheter was left in place until there were less than 50 ml of net drainage in 24 hours (average 3 ± 2 days). A total of 135 patients had metastatic carcinoma, 23 patients had lymphoma or chronic leukemia and 4 metastatic sarcoma. Patients with either lymphoma or chronic leukemia had better survival than those with carcinoma or sarcoma (median survival 102 vs 12 weeks, p < 0.0001) with a 46% vs 3% 5-year survival, p < 0.0001). Echoguided pericardiocentesis with extended pericardial catheter placement is safe and effective in cancer patients with pericardial effusions. However, overall outcomes are poor in cancer patients with pericardial effusions that required drainage, particularly in those with carcinoma or sarcoma.

Surgery for Tumors of the Heart

Most surgeons will encounter only a handful of primary cardiac tumors outside of myxomas. Approximately 3 quarters of primary cardiac tumors are benign and 1 quarter is malignant. In most cases, cardiac tumors are silent but when symptoms do occur, they are primarily determined by tumor size and anatomical location, not by histopathology. The diagnosis and preoperative imaging relies heavily on multimodal imaging including echocardiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and coronary angiography. Surgical resection is the most common treatment for most simple primary cardiac tumors and for some complex benign tumors. Surgical resection of primary cardiac tumors frequently involves the need for complex cardiac reconstruction, particularly when malignant. Secondary tumors to the heart are 30 times more frequent than primary cardiac tumors, and their incidence is increasing, largely as a result of advances in cancer diagnosis and therapy. Surgical resection is feasible in only a small fraction of highly-selected patients with secondary tumors to the heart. For complex benign tumors-such as paraganglioma or large fibromas-and all primary and secondary malignant tumors, a multidisciplinary cardiac tumor team review in experienced centers of excellence is recommended.

Pericardial Disease in Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To understand the variety of conditions in which the pericardium may be affected in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cancer may affect the pericardium directly (primary cancer; uncommon) or through metastases (commoner). Cancer treatment (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) may affect the pericardium leading to pericarditis and myopericarditis. Pericardial effusions, tamponade and constrictive pericarditis are complications that can also occur. A variety of techniques (predominantly cardiac imaging related) are used to make the diagnosis with the treatment strategy dependent on whether the pericardial disease is due to cancer or as a result of cancer treatment. A variety of pericardial diseases may be caused by cancer and cancer treatment. Determining the aetiology and providing effective treatment can often be challenging.

Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others on the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, pathology, imaging, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1990 through 2017. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. Results The literature search identified 222 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Recommendations Evidence-based recommendations were developed for diagnosis, staging, chemotherapy, surgical cytoreduction, radiation therapy, and multimodality therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Diagnostic Utility of Cyfra 21-1 and Cea Assays in Pericardial Fluid for the Recognition of Neoplastic Pericarditis

A positive cytology result in pericardial fluid is the gold standard for recognition of malignant pericardial effusion. Unfortunately, in 30–50% of patients with malignant pericardial effusion cytological examination of the pericardial fluid is negative. Tumor marker assessment in pericardial fluid may help to recognize malignant pericardial effusion. The aim of our study was to estimate the value of CYFRA 21-1 and CEA measurement in pericardial fluid for the recognition of malignant pericardial effusion. To our knowledge this is the first study on CYFRA 21-1 assessment in pericardial effusion. The examined group consisted of 50 patients with malignant pericardial effusion and 34 patients with non-malignant pericardial effusion. Median CEA concentrations in malignant pericardial effusion and non-malignant pericardial effusion were 80 ng/mL (0–317) and 0.5 ng/mL (0–18.4), respectively (p<0.001). Median CYFRA 21-1 concentrations in malignant pericardial effusion and non-malignant pericardial effusion were 260 ng/mL (5.3–10080) and 22.4 ng/mL (1.87–317.6), respectively (p<0.001). The optimal cutoff value for CYFRA 21-1 in pericardial effusion was 100 ng/mL. CYFRA 21-1 >100 ng/mL or CEA >5 ng/mL were found in 14/15 patients with malignant pericardial effusion and negative pericardial fluid cytology. We therefore strongly recommend the use of CYFRA 21-1 and/or CEA in addition to pericardial fluid cytology for the recognition of malignant pericardial effusion.

Oncologic Mechanical Emergencies

Prevalence of cancer and its various related complications continues to rise. Increasingly these life-threatening complications are initially managed in the emergency department, making a prompt and accurate diagnosis crucial to effectively institute the proper treatment and establish goals of care. The following oncologic emergencies are reviewed in this article: pericardial tamponade, superior vena cava syndrome, brain metastasis, malignant spinal cord compression, and hyperviscosity syndrome.

Comparison of Outcomes of Pericardiocentesis Versus Surgical Pericardial Window in Patients Requiring Drainage of Pericardial Effusions

Comparative outcomes of patients undergoing pericardiocentesis or pericardial window are limited. Development of pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery is common but no data exist to guide best management. Procedural billing codes and Cleveland Clinic surgical registries were used to identify 1,281 patients who underwent either pericardiocentesis or surgical pericardial window between January 2000 and December 2012. The 656 patients undergoing an intervention for a pericardial effusion secondary to cardiac surgery were also compared. Propensity scoring was used to identify well-matched patients in each group. In the overall cohort, in-hospital mortality was similar between the group undergoing pericardiocentesis and surgical drainage (5.3% vs 4.4%, p = 0.49). Similar outcomes were found in the propensity-matched group (4.9% vs 6.1%, p = 0.55). Re-accumulation was more common after pericardiocentesis (24% vs 10%, p <0.0001) and remained in the matched cohorts (23% vs 9%, p <0.0001). The secondary outcome of hemodynamic instability after the procedure was more common in the pericardial window group in both the unmatched (5.2% vs 2.9%, p = 0.036) and matched cohorts (6.1% vs 2.0%, p = 0.022). In the subgroup of patients with a pericardial effusion secondary to cardiac surgery, there was a lower mortality after pericardiocentesis in the unmatched group (1.5% vs 4.6%, p = 0.024); however, after adjustment, this difference in mortality was no longer present (2.6% vs 4.5%, p = 0.36). In conclusion, both pericardiocentesis and surgical pericardial window are safe and effective treatment strategies for the patient with a pericardial effusion. In our study there were no significant differences in mortality in patients undergoing either procedure. Observed differences in outcomes with regard to recurrence rates, hemodynamic instability, and in those with postcardiac surgery effusions may help to guide the clinician in management of the patient requiring therapeutic or diagnostic drainage of a pericardial effusion.

Performance, pain, and quality of life on use of central venous catheter for management of pericardial effusions in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Different pericardial catheters have been suggested as an effective alternative method for drainage of pericardial effusion. The aim of this study was to determine the performance, pain, and quality of life on use of central venous catheter (CVC) for drainage of pericardial effusion in patients undergoing open heart surgery. Fifty-five patients who had developed pericardial effusion after an open heart surgery (2012-2015) were prospectively assessed. Triple-lumen central catheters were inserted under echocardiographic guidance. Clinical, procedural, complication, and outcome details were analyzed. Intensity of pain and quality of life of patients were assessed using the numerical rating scale and Short-Form Health Survey. CVC was inserted for 36 males and 19 females, all of whom had a mean age of 58.5±15 years, and the mean duration of the open heart surgery was 8±3.5 hours. The mean central venous pressure catheter life span was 14.6 days. No cases of recurrent effusion and complication were reported. The technical success rate of procedure was 100%. Intensity of pain and quality of life of patients had improved during follow-up. CVC insertion is a safe and effective technique for the management of pericardial effusion in patients after open heart surgery.

Outcomes of Cancer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion

BACKGROUND

Pericardial effusion (PE) is common in cancer patients, but the optimal therapeutic approach is not well defined. Percutaneous pericardiocentesis is less invasive than surgery, but its long-term effectiveness and safety have not been well documented.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of cancer patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis for PE and assess the procedure's safety in patients with thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

Cancer patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis for PE between November 2009 and October 2014 at the MD Anderson Cancer Center were included. Procedure-related complications, effusion recurrence rate, and overall survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 1,645 cancer patients referred for PE, 212 (13%) underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis. The procedure was successful in 99% of the cases, and there were no procedure-related deaths. Four patients had major procedure-related bleeding that did not vary by platelet count <50,000/μl or ≥50,000/μl (p = 0.1281). Patients with catheter drainage for 3 to 5 days had the lowest recurrence rate (10%). Median overall survival was 143 days; older age (i.e., >65 years), lung cancer, platelet count <20,000/μl, and malignant pericardial fluid were independently associated with poor prognosis. Lung cancer patients with proven malignant effusions had a significantly shorter median 1-year survival compared with those with nonmalignant effusions (16.2% vs. 49.0%, respectively; log-rank test p = 0.0101). A similar difference in 1-year survival was not observed in patients with breast cancer (40.2% vs. 40.0%; log-rank test p = 0.4170).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous pericardiocentesis with extended catheter drainage was safe and effective as the primary treatment for PE in cancer patients, including in those with thrombocytopenia. Malignant PE significantly shortened the survival outcome of patients with lung cancer but not those with breast cancer.

European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) position paper: Multimodality imaging in pericardial disease

Although pericardial diseases are common in the daily clinical practice and can result in a significant morbidity and mortality, imaging of patients with suspected or known pericardial disorders remain challenging. Multimodality imaging is part of the management of pericardial diseases. Echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance are often used as complementary imaging modalities. The choice of one or multiple imaging modalities is driven by the clinical context or conditions of the patient. The scope of the present document is to highlight the respective role of each technique according to the clinical context in the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases.

Long and wrong way: Unintended pericardial catheter insertion through stomach

Complications of percutaneous pericardial catheter insertion for pericardial effusion are rare. We describe a rare complication of percutaneous pericardial catheter insertion that penetrated the stomach and diaphragm before getting into the pericardial sac in a patient with lymphoma. The misplaced catheter was extracted surgically and subxiphoid pericardial tube insertion with pleural pericardial window was performed. <Learning objective: Although similar outcomes have been reported with both percutaneous and subxiphoid techniques, major complications may arise with the percutaneous technique. This case emphasizes that percutaneous pericardial catheter insertion may have serious complications and these procedures should be performed by experienced clinicians with the standby of a cardiac team.>.

Oncologic mechanical emergencies

Prevalence of cancer and its various related complications continues to rise. Increasingly these life-threatening complications are initially managed in the emergency department, making a prompt and accurate diagnosis crucial to effectively institute the proper treatment and establish goals of care. The following oncologic emergencies are reviewed in this article: pericardial tamponade, superior vena cava syndrome, brain metastasis, malignant spinal cord compression, and hyperviscosity syndrome.

[Intrapericardial lung cancer metastases: Is a curative approach feasible?]

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer metastases are classified M1a and M1b. Studies on patients with pleural invasion graded M1a have demonstrated the possibility of prolonged survival following multimodality treatment, but this has not been reported for M1a pericardial involvement.

CASE REPORT

A 59-year-old man underwent lung surgery for a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma TTF1+ with K-ras mutation. He was staged as pT4N0 because of a nodule in another ipsilateral lobe. A pericardial effusion with imminent tamponade occurred during the postoperative course necessitating drainage leading to the discovery of pericardial metastases and restaging as pT4N0M1a. Adjuvant treatment was performed and the patient remains alive and disease free 3 years later.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of pericardial M1a might be refined as has been the case in pleural M1a disease. Biological data might allow more precise classification and treatment. N0-N1 and non-T3-T4 by invasion patients might in selected cases benefit from surgery included as part of multimodal therapy.

Retrospective comparison of outcomes, diagnostic value, and complications of percutaneous prolonged drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy of pericardial effusion associated with malignancy

Surgical pericardiotomy is often preferred as a primary option in patients with malignant pericardial effusions. Recent series have revealed that prolonged drainage substantially reduces pericardial effusion recurrence rates, even in the setting of malignancy. The aim of the study was to directly compare the efficacy of pericardiocentesis with prolonged drainage with the primary surgical pericardiotomy in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion associated with a malignancy. We retrospectively evaluated 88 patients who presented with pericardial tamponade associated with a malignancy. Pericardiocentesis with extended drainage was performed in 43 patients and surgical pericardiotomy in 45 patients. The recurrence rate was not significantly different in patients with prolonged catheter drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy (12% vs 13%, respectively, p = 0.78). In addition, there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between percutaneous drainage and surgical window (44% vs 53%, respectively, p = 0.39). The overall rate of complications was significantly lower in the prolonged drainage group (2% vs 20%, p = 0.007). Moreover, there were no serious complications in the prolonged drainage group versus 9% in the surgical pericardiotomy group. In conclusion, (1) surgical pericardiotomy with pericardial biopsy does not add significant diagnostic value beyond the cytologic assessment available with pericardiocentesis, (2) surgical pericardiotomy does not improve clinical outcomes over pericardiocentesis, and (3) surgical pericardiotomy is associated with a higher rate of complications.

An extremely rare combination: pneumopericardium, pneumoperitoneum, and subcutanous emphysema-a case report

Pneumopericardium, an accumulation of air in the pericardial cavity, occurs very rarely as compared to pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum. Clinical presentation is variable, patients are frequently asymptomatic, and mild cases usually resolve spontaneously. However, it may lead to pericardial tamponade, which requires rapid diagnosis and treatment that can be lifesaving. The traditional diagnostic, simple method of diagnosis is via an upright chest X-ray. Typical findings can be detected and a differential diagnosis can be made between pneumomediastinum and pneumopericardium. Echocardiography and chest computed tomography scans can also support the diagnosis. Only one case of pneumopericardium after surgical pericardiotomy has been reported in the literature so far. In this case report, iatrogenic pneumopericardium, which resolved spontaneously after surgical pericardiotomy, was reported in a 19-year-old patient who had a rejected liver transplantation, and had liver and kidney failure with pericardial tamponade. In this case, pneumopericardium was accompanied by pneumoperitoneum and subcutaneous emphysema; an extremely rare combination.

Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy as the initial and definitive treatment for malignant pericardial effusion

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Malignant pericardial effusion has a high recurrence rate after pericardiocentesis. We sought to confirm the efficacy of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy as the initial treatment of choice for these effusions.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the clinical, echocardiographic, and follow-up characteristics of a consecutive series of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomies carried out in a single center in patients with advanced cancer.

RESULTS

Seventeen percutaneous balloon pericardiotomies were performed in 16 patients with a mean age of 66.2 (15.2) years. Fourteen patients had pathologically confirmed metastatic neoplastic disease, 3 had previously required pericardiocentesis, and in the remaining patients percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy was the first treatment for the effusion. All patients had a severe circumferential effusion, and most presented evidence of hemodynamic compromise on echocardiography. In all cases, the procedure was successful, there were no acute complications, and it was well tolerated at the first attempt. There were no infectious complications during follow-up (median, 44 [interquartile range, 36-225] days). One patient developed a large pleural effusion that did not require treatment. Three patients needed a new pericardial procedure: 2 had elective pericardial window surgeries and 1 had a second percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy is a simple, safe technique that can be effective in the prevention of recurrence in many patients with severe malignant pericardial effusion. The characteristics of this procedure make it particularly useful in this group of patients to avoid more aggressive, poorly tolerated approaches.

Pericardial effusion and pericardiocentesis: role of echocardiography

Pericardial effusion can develop from any pericardial disease, including pericarditis and several systemic disorders, such as malignancies, pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic renal failure, thyroid diseases, and autoimmune diseases. The causes of large pericardial effusion requiring invasive pericardiocentesis may vary according to the time, country, and hospital. Transthoracic echocardiography is the most important tool for diagnosis, grading, the pericardiocentesis procedure, and follow up of pericardial effusion. Cardiac tamponade is a kind of cardiogenic shock and medical emergency. Clinicians should understand the tamponade physiology, especially because it can develop without large pericardial effusion. In addition, clinicians should correlate the echocardiographic findings of tamponade, such as right ventricular collapse, right atrial collapse, and respiratory variation of mitral and tricuspid flow, with clinical signs of clinical tamponade, such as hypotension or pulsus paradoxus. Percutaneous pericardiocentesis has been the most useful procedure in many cases of large pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, or pericardial effusion of unknown etiology. The procedure should be performed with the guidance of echocardiography.

Blind subxiphoid pericardiotomy to relieve critical acute hemopericardium: a final report

PURPOSE

Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) has been considered a standard method of relieving acute cardiac tamponade. Although conventional subxiphoid pericardiotomy is useful even for clotted hemopericardium, it has been believed to be unsuitable for emergency treatment because it is a time-consuming procedure. We report our modified pericardiotomy technique that can be used for emergency management.

METHODS

We designed a prospective observational study to evaluate blind subxiphoid pericardiotomy (BSP) for critical cardiac tamponade due to hemopericardium. Emergency patients (n = 148) with acute hemopericardium secondary to trauma (n = 12), acute aortic disease (n = 122), or cardiac rupture following acute myocardial infarction (n = 14) were the subjects. Early results were compared between the BSP group (n = 53) and the PCD group (n = 95).

RESULTS

BSP was effective at relieving cardiac tamponade in all 53 cases, but PCD was ineffective in 12 cases (12.6 %, p = 0.008). Procedure-related complication rates of BSP and PCD were 0 and 16.8 %, respectively (p = 0.002). Survival rates for the BSP and PCD groups were 18.9 and 6.3 %, respectively (p = 0.018). Since 2005, when we discarded the restriction that only board-certified surgeons should perform BSP, acute care physicians (including trainees) have performed BSP for 22 patients without procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

BSP was safe and effective for cardiac tamponade due to acute hemopericardium. Critical complications during PCD for hemopericardium could not be avoided in some cases because of clots in the pericardium.

Mediastinoscope-controlled parasternal fenestration of the pericardium: definitive surgical palliation of malignant pericardial effusion

Background

The tumorous infiltration or carcinosis of the pericardium could cause pericardial effusion in up to one-third of cases of malignancy, thus potentially interfere with the otherwise desirable oncological treatment. The existing surgical methods for the management of pericardial fluid are well-established but are not without limitations in the symptomatic relief of malignant pericardial effusion (MPE). The recurrence rate ranges between 43 and 69% after pericardiocentesis and 9 to 16% after pericardial drainage. The desire to overcome relative limitations of the existing methods led us to explore an alternative approach.

Methods

The standard armamentarium of the Carlens collar mediastinoscopy procedure was utilized in a Chamberlain parasternal approach of the pericardial sac. The laterality of approach was decided based upon the pleural involvement, as tumor-free pericardiopleural reflection is required. A pericardio-pleural window at least 3 cm in diameter was created. From January 2000 to December 2009, 22 cases were operated on with mediastinoscope-controlled parasternal fenestration (MCPF). Considering the type of the primary tumor, there were 11 lung cancer, 6 breast cancers, 2 haematologic malignancies and in 3 patients the origin of malignancy could not be verified.

Results

There were no operative deaths. We lost one patient (4.5%) in the postoperative hospital period. All of the surviving patients had a minimum of 2 months of symptom-free survival. We detected transient recurrence of MPE in one patient (4.5%) 14 days after the MCPF, which disappeared spontaneously after 24 hours.

Conclusion

The MCPF offers a real alternative in certain cases of pericardial effusion. We recommend this method especially for the definitive surgical palliation of MPE.

[Pericardial effusion. Differential diagnostics, surveillance and treatment]

Cardiac tamponade can be a life-threatening condition due to the high variability of clinical symptoms and the associated risk of rapid hemodynamic deterioration. Therefore, accurate diagnosis followed by immediate intervention is necessary. Common clinical features of cardiac tamponade are pulsus paradoxus, tachycardia, elevated jugular venous pressure and hypotension; however, although these can be indicative of cardiac tamponade they are non-specific. Instant confirmation of the clinical diagnosis of cardiac tamponade can be pursued with echocardiography which also enables a clear estimation of the current hemodynamic situation. Thus in contemporary clinical practice echocardiography plays a key role in the management of cardiac tamponade and must be consulted with regards to final treatment decisions. Common practice includes pericardial puncture under echocardiographic and/or X-ray guidance but only in cases of significantly sized pericardial effusions. Whenever there is a limited sized but hemodynamically significant effusion, inferior pericardiotomy should be the preferred treatment strategy. In cases of cardiac tamponade following chest trauma a full median sternotomy can be a suitable approach for surgical treatment.

Percutaneous drainage of postoperative pericardial effusion in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

 Postoperative pericardial effusion is frequent and can be complicated by cardiac tamponade. Although the different drainage techniques are well described in the setting of medical effusion, there is not a standard postoperative effusion treatment. The aim of this work was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the percutaneous pericardial drainage.

METHODS

This a retrospective study involving 197 patients from 1990 to 2008. Drainage was performed by subxiphoid puncture (91.9%) or left parasternal puncture (8.1%) between 3 and 690 days following a cardiac procedure via median sternotomy. Effusion thickness was at least 10 mm in the subcostal echocardiography view.

RESULTS

No deaths directly related to the procedure were observed. Complete and enduring drainage was achieved in 158 patients (80.2%). The procedure failed for 22 patients (11.2%) because no fluid was drained in 14 cases (7.1%) and a right ventricular puncture in 8 cases (4.1%). Recurrence of the effusion, which occurred for 17 patients (8.6%), was more frequent if an effusion of more than 5 mm persisted after the first drainage (P = 0.024) and if the drainage was performed outside the operating room because of emergency (P = 0.046). Risk factors for mortality were recurrence of the effusion (P = 0.04) and drainage performed outside the operating room (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous pericardial drainage is effective to treat postoperative pericardial effusion. When the effusion is thicker than 10 mm and accessible, it can be the initial strategy and surgical drainage can serve as an alternate strategy in case of failure and complications of this procedure.

Clinical characteristics of malignant pericardial effusion associated with recurrence and survival

Purpose

We evaluated clinical outcomes after drainage for malignant pericardial effusion with imminent or overt tamponade.

Materials and Methods

Between August 2001 and June 2007, 100 patients underwent pericardiocentesis for malignant pericardial effusion. Adequate follow-up information on the recurrence of pericardial effusion and survival status was available for 98 patients.

Results

Recurrence of effusion occurred in 30 patients (31%), all of whom were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. Multivariate analysis indicated that adenocarcinoma of the lung (hazard ratio [HR], 6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 22.3; p=0.003) and progressive disease despite chemotherapy (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 12.0; p=0.005) were independent predictors of recurrence. Survival rates three months after pericardiocentesis differed significantly with the type of primary cancer; the rates were 73%, 18%, 90% and 30% in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung, squamous cell carcinoma of the lung, breast cancer and other cancers, respectively.

Conclusion

Recurrence and survival of patients with malignant pericardial effusion are dependent on the type of primary cancer and response to chemotherapy. Patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung may be good candidates for surgical drainage to avoid repeated pericardiocentesis, but pericardiocentesis is considered effective as palliative management in patients with other cancers.

Pericardial effusions in the cancer population: prognostic factors after pericardial window and the impact of paradoxical hemodynamic instability

OBJECTIVE

In the cancer population, pericardial effusions are a common and potentially life-threatening occurrence. Although decompression benefits most patients, paradoxical hemodynamic instability (PHI) develops in some, with hypotension and shock in the immediate postoperative period. This study examines paradoxical hemodynamic instability after pericardial window and identifies prognostic factors in patients with cancer who are treated for pericardial effusion.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 179 consecutive pericardial windows performed for pericardial effusion in a tertiary cancer center over a 5-year period (January 2004 through March 2009). Demographic, surgical, pathologic, and echocardiographic data were analyzed for the end points of paradoxical hemodynamic instability (pressor-dependent hypotension requiring intensive care unit admission) and overall survival.

RESULTS

The most common malignancies were lung (44%), breast (20%), hematologic (10%), and gastrointestinal (7%). Overall survival for the group was poor (median, 5 months); patients with hematologic malignant disease fared significantly better than the others (median survival 36 months; P = .008). Paradoxical hemodynamic instability occurred in 19 (11%) patients. These patients were more likely to have evidence of tamponade on echocardiogram (89% vs 56%; P = .005), positive cytology/pathology (68% vs 41%; P = .03), and higher volume drained (674 mL vs 495 mL; P = .003). Overall survival was significantly shorter in those in whom paradoxical hemodynamic instability developed (median survival 35 vs 189 days; hazard ratio = 3; P < .001), and the majority of them (11/19, 58%) did not survive their hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative hemodynamic instability after pericardial window portends a grave prognosis. Evidence of tamponade, larger effusion volumes, and positive cytologic findings may predict a higher risk of paradoxical hemodynamic instability and anticipate a need for invasive monitoring and intensive care postoperatively.

The pericardial window: is a video-assisted thoracoscopy approach better than a surgical approach?

OBJECTIVES

The approach to the pericardial window in patients with pericardial effusion (PE) remains undefined as to whether a surgical (transthoracic or subxiphoid) or a thoracoscopic pericardial window is the optimal operative approach to PE. We hypothesized that the window into the pleural space created by the thoracoscopy might improve the outcome.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study between September 2007 and October 2009. All patients with PE diagnosed by echocardiography who attended the Cardiothoracic Department in King Fahd Hospital are included in this study. They were 30 patients (18 males, 12 females aged 44±1.22 years). Patients were subdivided into two groups. Group A, 15 patients underwent the surgical (transthoracic or subxiphoid) procedure and Group B, 15 patients underwent the video-assisted thoracoscopy procedure. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables, morbidity, recurrence, and survival were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

Preoperative variables were well-matched for age, sex, preoperative tamponade, echocardiographical characteristics and co-morbidities between both groups. No recurrence of effusion was observed in the two groups. Operative time was statistically highly significant (P<0.001); it was longer in Group B. There was no intraoperative complication in both groups. There was no postoperative complication in both groups except one case of superficial wound infection in Group A. There was no significance difference between both groups as regard duration of chest tube drainage and length of hospital stay. There was no in-hospital mortality in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pericardial window by video-assisted thoracoscopy is an effective technique for pericardial drainage and biopsy. Apart from its diagnostic value, it allows the physician to fashion a pleuropericardial window for effective drainage while avoiding the complications of classic surgical procedures.

Image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical experience with image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients. IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. From November 2002 to January 2008, 40 patients underwent 43 image-guided drainages of pericardial effusions. The medical records were reviewed to analyze the technical aspects of the procedures, complications, and clinical outcomes. Thirty-three pericardial drains were placed and 10 pericardiocenteses were performed. The technical success rate was 100%. Thirty-three procedures were performed under computed tomographic (CT) guidance, five under ultrasound (US) guidance, and five using both CT and US guidance. There were no technical, procedure-related complications. Delayed postprocedure complications and arrhythmias occurred in 11 cases, for an overall complication rate of 25.6%. All complications occurred in patients who had undergone drain placement. Nine patients developed new or worsening arrhythmias and six of these patients required transfer to a higher level of care or the initiation of pharmacological management. In 58.6% of drain placements, including 4 of 11 patients who developed complications, the catheter could have been removed earlier. The median overall survival was 6.47 months (95% CI: 2.37, 12.7). In conclusion, image-guided pericardial drain placement is safe and feasible. Due to the frequency of delayed postprocedure arrhythmias, follow-up monitoring in a telemetry unit is recommended. Prompt catheter removal after drainage may reduce the incidence of delayed post-catheter-insertion arrhythmias.

A randomised trial of intrapericardial bleomycin for malignant pericardial effusion with lung cancer (JCOG9811)

Safety and efficacy of intrapericardial (i.p.c.) instillation of bleomycin (BLM) following pericardial drainage in patients with malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) remain unclear. Patients with pathologically documented lung cancer, who had undergone pericardial drainage for MPE within 72 h of enrolment, were randomised to either arm A (observation alone after drainage) or arm B (i.p.c. BLM at 15 mg, followed by additional i.p.c. BLM 10 mg every 48 h). The drainage tube was removed when daily drainage was 20 ml or less. The primary end point was survival with MPE control (effusion failure-free survival, EFFS) at 2 months. Eighty patients were enrolled, and 79 were eligible. Effusion failure-free survival at 2 months was 29% in arm A and 46% in arm B (one-sided P=0.086 by Fisher's exact test). Arm B tended to favour EFFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.40-1.03, one-sided P=0.030 by log-rank test). No significant differences in the acute toxicities or complications were observed. The median survival was 79 days and 119 days in arm A and arm B, respectively. This medium-sized trial failed to show statistical significance in the primary end point. Although ipc BLM appeared safe and effective in the management of MPE, the therapeutic advantage seems modest.