Selective use of pericardial window and drainage as sole treatment for hemopericardium from penetrating chest trauma

Management of Penetrating Cardiac Injuries With Pericardial Window and Drainage in Select Patients

BACKGROUND

Management of penetrating chest injuries with a positive pericardial window (PW) are presumed cardiac injuries and traditionally result in sternotomy. However, there is some evidence in the literature that select patients can be managed with PW, lavage, and drainage (PWLD).

METHODS

All patients with penetrating chest trauma who underwent PW and/or sternotomy over a 5-year period were identified. Patients were stratified by operative intervention [PW + sternotomy vs PWLD] and compared. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of therapeutic sternotomy.

RESULTS

Of the 146 patients who underwent PW and/or sternotomy included in the study, 126 patients underwent PW, 39 underwent sternotomy, and 10 underwent PWLD. There was no difference in demographics, LOS, ICU LOS, vent days, or mortality in patients who underwent PW + sternotomy, compared to patients who underwent PWLD. In the PWLD group, one patient returned to the OR for recurrent pericardial effusion and no patients required sternotomy. Multivariable logistic regression identified ISS as an independent predictor of therapeutic sternotomy (OR 1.160; 95% CI 1.006-1.338, P = .0616). Interestingly, positive FAST, significant CT findings, and trajectory were not predictors of therapeutic sternotomy. There were 7 patients with a left hemothorax and negative FAST found to have a positive PW and cardiac injury mandating sternotomy and repair.

CONCLUSION

Penetrating cardiac injury can be managed with PWLD in select patients. Positive FAST, significant findings on CT, and trajectory do not mandate sternotomy. A negative FAST in the setting of a hemothorax does not rule out a cardiac injury.

Manejo conservador del hemopericardio por trauma: reporte de un caso

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.

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.

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.

A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) to determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound (US) compared with a pericardial window (PW) for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma.

METHODS

A literature search in five databases identified relevant articles for inclusion in this SR and MA. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chest US, compared with a PW, for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with penetrating thoracic trauma. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for final analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We performed a MA of binary diagnostic test accuracy within the bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling framework.

RESULTS

We included five studies in our SR and MA. These studies included a total of 556 trauma patients. The MA found that, compared with PW, the US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. The presence of a concomitant left hemothorax was frequent in patients with false-negative results.

CONCLUSION

This SR and MA found that, compared with PW, US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Caution interpretation of pericardial US results is suggested in the presence of left hemothorax. In these cases, a second diagnostic test should be performed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, level II.

Late Cardiac Tamponade in a Patient Victim of Penetrating Trauma - Case Report

CASE PRESENTATION

A case of a 49-year-old patient, male, victim of stab wound, developing belatedly cardiac tamponade and hemodynamic stability was reported. The patient underwent a pericardial window with drainage of pericardial effusion of blackened aspect; however, without visualization of the cardiac lesion, enlargement of the incision by median sternotomy was opted for. A hematoma was spotted at the left ventricle with epicardial lesion and a patch of pericardium was made with 3-0 polypropylene. The patient developed acute pulmonary edema and atrial fibrillation, which improved after the intensive care unit clinical management, with hospital discharge in the 7th postoperative day.