Retrospective evaluation of pericardial catheter placement in the management of pericardial effusion in dogs (2007-2015):18 cases

Retrospective evaluation of the use of small-bore wire-guided catheters for the management of peritoneal effusion in cats and dogs

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of small-bore wire-guided catheters in the management of peritoneal effusion in cats and dogs and to detail any associated adverse events.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

University teaching hospital ANIMALS: Forty-five client-owned animals that had peritoneal catheters placed for management of peritoneal effusion between July 2010 and June 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five cases were included (25 dogs and 20 cats). Twenty-eight animals had the catheter placed to aid management of a uroabdomen, 8 of which recovered without surgical management, 11 had the catheter placed to allow autotransfusion of hemoabdomen, 3 had peritonitis, and 3 had ascites secondary to cardiac disease. Twenty-seven cases (15 dogs and 12 cats) received sedation (n = 24) or local anesthesia alone (n = 3) to facilitate catheter placement, and 6 cases had the catheter placed while under general anesthesia. Median length of catheter persistence was 24 hours (range: 2-144 h). The most common adverse events reported were impaired drainage (n = 7) and leakage at the insertion site (n = 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal catheters can be inserted percutaneously for management of peritoneal effusion. Indications include stabilization and conservative management of uroabdomen, and autotransfusion. They can often be placed with minimal or no sedation and adverse events appear infrequent in occurrence.

Prospective evaluation of pericardial catheter placement versus needle pericardiocentesis in the management of canine pericardial effusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of pericardial catheter placement with needle pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion (PE) DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

ANIMALS

Thirty client-owned dogs requiring pericardiocentesis between January 2017 and August 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Dogs were randomized to undergo PE drainage via indwelling pericardial catheter placement (catheter group) followed by elective drainage every 4-6 hours or needle pericardiocentesis (needle group) repeated as necessary.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen dogs were allocated to the catheter group and 15 to the needle group. Data collected included signalment, cause of effusion, occurrence of arrhythmias pre-, during, and post-pericardiocentesis, procedural length, and details of repeated drainages. There was no significant difference between mean procedural times for pericardial catheter placement (17.7 min [±11.8]) and needle pericardiocentesis (12.1 min [±8.6]) (P = 0.192) or the rate of new arrhythmias in the catheter (36%) and needle (64%) groups (P = 0.24). Pericardial catheters were kept in situ for a median of 21 hours (range, 14-85). Three of 15 (20%) dogs in the needle group required repeated pericardiocentesis within 24 hours of initial pericardiocentesis. Pericardial catheters enabled repeated large volume PE drainage in 4 cases (median, 10.6 mL/kg; range, 8-5-10.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Pericardial catheters appear to offer a safe alternative to needle pericardiocentesis. Minimal sedation is required for placement, and they can be placed quickly. Their indwelling nature and use was not associated with a higher rate of arrhythmia compared to that of needle pericardiocentesis alone, and may be beneficial in the event that clinically significant PE recurs.