Etiology and Long-Term Outcome of Patients Undergoing Pericardiocentesis

Malignant Pericardial Effusion: A Systematic Review

Background

Malignant pericardial effusion (Eff) is often asymptomatic and has an unknown prevalence, due to its occult presentation. The condition often is identified postmortem on autopsy, and it is associated with a poor prognosis. Given the late presentation of malignant pericardial Effs, a minimal volume of literature has examined the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of these complex patients. We conducted a systematic review to advance present understanding of this condition.

Methods

A search of 4 databases resulted in 41 case reports meeting criteria. Inclusion criteria were being a patient aged > 18 years who presented with pericardial Eff in the setting of malignancy. Intervention was medical and/or surgical therapy, and the outcome was mortality.

Results

For the 41 patients included, the median age was 54 years, and the majority were male patients (58%). Dyspnea was the leading symptom (90%), and cardiac tamponade was present in 78% of cases. Common cancers included lung, gastrointestinal, and renal neoplasms (59%). Pericardiocentesis occurred in 98% of cases, with a median fluid extraction volume of 1000 mL. Death occurred in 44%, primarily due to disease progression and/or metastasis.

Conclusions

This study presents the largest systematic review on malignancy-induced pericardial Effs to date. Notably, solid tumours, and specifically lung adenocarcinomas, are common culprits. Malignant pericardial Effs are often severe, with a majority of patients presenting with cardiac tamponade. Overall, treatment options are limited, and the associated mortality rate is high.

Asymptomatic Chronic Large Pericardial Effusions: To Drain or to Observe?

Pericardial effusions, especially large ones, have traditionally been regarded with concern by clinicians due to the sometimes unpredictable development of life-threatening cardiac tamponade. In the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on pericardial diseases, the simplified algorithm for pericardial effusion triage and management recommends pericardial drainage in cases of cardiac tamponade and/or suspicion of bacterial or neoplastic etiology. In the presence of acute pericarditis, empiric anti-inflammatory treatment should be given, while when a specific indication known to be associated with pericardial effusion is found, then treatment of the underlying cause is indicated. Notably, the most challenging subgroup of patients includes those with large, asymptomatic, C-reactive-protein-negative, idiopathic effusions. In the latter subjects, pericardial drainage is proposed in cases of chronic effusions (lasting more than three months). However, this recommendation is based on scant data stemming from small-sized non-randomized studies. Nevertheless, recent evidence in a larger cohort of patients pointed out that a watchful waiting strategy is a safe option in terms of complication-free survival. This review summarizes the contemporary evidence on this challenging topic and provides recommendations for tailoring individual patient treatments.

A case report of cardiac tamponade after a road accident: think beyond trauma

Background

Cardiac tamponade is a life-threatening compression of the heart caused by the accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac. Although central venous catheters (CVCs) are essential in modern medicine, they carry a certain risk of complications including cardiac tamponade.

Case summary

A 12-year-old female was involved in a road accident reporting multiple severe traumatic injuries, including a left humerus fracture and subdural haemorrhage. After 2 days in the intensive care unit, she suddenly developed hypotension and cardiac tamponade was diagnosed. Analysis of the pericardial fluid showed high glucose levels comparable to the parenteral nutrition that she was receiving. Retraction of the CVC allowed resolution of the effusion.

Discussion

Cardiac tamponade is a rare but serious adverse event after CVC insertion, mostly among younger patients. Awareness of this risk allows physicians to promptly recognize and treat this dangerous complication.

Pericardial effusion in oncological patients: current knowledge and principles of management

BACKGROUND

This article provides an up-to-date overview of pericardial effusion in oncological practice and a guidance on its management. Furthermore, it addresses the question of when malignancy should be suspected in case of newly diagnosed pericardial effusion.

MAIN BODY

Cancer-related pericardial effusion is commonly the result of localization of lung and breast cancer, melanoma, or lymphoma to the pericardium via direct invasion, lymphatic dissemination, or hematogenous spread. Several cancer therapies may also cause pericardial effusion, most often during or shortly after administration. Pericardial effusion following radiation therapy may instead develop after years. Other diseases, such as infections, and, rarely, primary tumors of the pericardium complete the spectrum of the possible etiologies of pericardial effusion in oncological patients. The diagnosis of cancer-related pericardial effusion is usually incidental, but cancer accounts for approximately one third of all cardiac tamponades. Drainage, which is mainly attained by pericardiocentesis, is needed when cancer or cancer treatment-related pericardial effusion leads to hemodynamic impairment. Placement of a pericardial catheter for 2-5 days is advised after pericardial fluid removal. In contrast, even a large pericardial effusion should be conservatively managed when the patient is stable, although the best frequency and timing of monitoring by echocardiography in this context are yet to be established. Pericardial effusion secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitors typically responds to corticosteroid therapy. Pericardiocentesis may also be considered to confirm the presence of neoplastic cells in the pericardial fluid, but the yield of cytological examination is low. In case of newly found pericardial effusion in individuals without active cancer and/or recent cancer treatment, a history of malignancy, unremitting or recurrent course, large effusion or presentation with cardiac tamponade, incomplete response to empirical therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, and hemorrhagic fluid at pericardiocentesis suggest a neoplastic etiology.

Radiation-Induced Pericardial Disease: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aim to give a concise overview of the different clinical manifestations of both acute and long-term radiotherapy-related pericardial diseases, the underlying pathophysiology as well as the diagnosis and treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Radiotherapy-related pericardial disease is common, but despite radiotherapy being a cornerstone of many cancer treatments, this disease entity is relatively underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in a paucity of research data on pathophysiology and management. Since the development of innovative cancer treatments, survival has significantly improved. Therefore, the importance of long-term treatment-related side effects increases, most notably cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity. In patients undergoing radiotherapy as a part of their cancer treatment, radiotherapy-related pericardial disease can manifest early (during or shortly after radiotherapy administration) or very late (several years to decades after treatment). This exceptionally long latency period confronts physicians with treatment-related side effects of radiotherapy regimens that may have been abandoned already.

Cardiac tamponade

Cardiac tamponade is a medical emergency caused by the progressive accumulation of pericardial fluid (effusion), blood, pus or air in the pericardium, compressing the heart chambers and leading to haemodynamic compromise, circulatory shock, cardiac arrest and death. Pericardial diseases of any aetiology as well as complications of interventional and surgical procedures or chest trauma can cause cardiac tamponade. Tamponade can be precipitated in patients with pericardial effusion by dehydration or exposure to certain medications, particularly vasodilators or intravenous diuretics. Key clinical findings in patients with cardiac tamponade are hypotension, increased jugular venous pressure and distant heart sounds (Beck triad). Dyspnoea can progress to orthopnoea (with no rales on lung auscultation) accompanied by weakness, fatigue, tachycardia and oliguria. In tamponade caused by acute pericarditis, the patient can experience fever and typical chest pain increasing on inspiration and radiating to the trapezius ridge. Generally, cardiac tamponade is a clinical diagnosis that can be confirmed using various imaging modalities, principally echocardiography. Cardiac tamponade is preferably resolved by echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis. In patients who have recently undergone cardiac surgery and in those with neoplastic infiltration, effusive-constrictive pericarditis, or loculated effusions, fluoroscopic guidance can increase the feasibility and safety of the procedure. Surgical management is indicated in patients with aortic dissection, chest trauma, bleeding or purulent infection that cannot be controlled percutaneously. After pericardiocentesis or pericardiotomy, NSAIDs and colchicine can be considered to prevent recurrence and effusive-constrictive pericarditis.

Pericardial Fluid Analysis in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients Who Underwent Pericardiocentesis

In this study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic yield of pericardial fluid biochemistry and cytology and their prognostic significance in patients with percutaneously drained pericardial effusions, with and without malignancy. This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis between 2010 and 2020. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, including procedural information, underlying diagnosis, and laboratory results. Patients were grouped into those with and without underlying malignancy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the association of variables with mortality. The study included 179 patients; 50% had an underlying malignancy. There were no significant differences in pericardial fluid protein and lactate dehydrogenase between the 2 groups. Diagnostic yield from pericardial fluid analysis was greater in the malignant group (32% vs 11%, p = 0.002); 72% of newly diagnosed malignancies had positive fluid cytology. The 1-year survival was 86% and 33% in nonmalignant and malignant groups, respectively (p <0.001). Of 17 patients who died within the nonmalignant group, idiopathic effusions were the largest group (n = 6). In malignancy, lower pericardial fluid protein and higher serum C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of mortality. In conclusion, pericardial fluid biochemistry has limited value in determining the etiology of pericardial effusions; fluid cytology is the most important diagnostic test. Mortality in malignant pericardial effusions may be associated with lower pericardial fluid protein levels and a higher serum C-reactive protein. Nonmalignant pericardial effusions do not have a benign prognosis and close follow-up is required.

Prevalence, characteristics and mortality of cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States between 2004 and 2017

BACKGROUND

Pericardiocentesis is undertaken in patients with cancer for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, there are limited data on the frequency, characteristics and mortality of patients with different cancers undergoing pericardiocentesis.

METHODS

All hospitalisations of adult cancer patients (≥18 years) in the US National Inpatient Sample between January 2004 and December 2017 were included. The cohort was stratified by discharge code of pericardiocentesis and cancer, using the International Classification of Diseases. The prevalence of pericardiocentesis, patient characteristics, cancer types and in-hospital all-cause mortality were analysed between cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis versus not.

RESULTS

A total of 19,773,597 weighted cancer discharges were analysed, out of which 18,847 (0.1%) underwent pericardiocentesis. The most common cancer types amongst the patients receiving pericardiocentesis were lung (51.3%), haematological (15.9%), breast (5.4%), mediastinum/heart (3.2%), gastroesophageal (2.2%) and female genital cancer (1.8%), whilst 'other' cancer types were present in 20.2% patients. Patients undergoing pericardiocentesis had significantly higher mortality (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to their counterparts. The presence of metastatic disease (aOR 2.67 95% CI 1.79-3.97), weight loss (aOR 1.48 95% CI 1.33-1.65) and coagulopathy (aOR 3.22 95% CI 1.63-6.37) were each independently associated with higher mortality in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis.

CONCLUSION

Pericardiocentesis is an infrequent procedure in cancer patients and is most commonly performed in patients with lung, haematological and breast cancer. Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis have increased mortality, irrespective of the underlying cancer type.

A Case of Pericardial Effusion and Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Postmodern Era

Pericardial effusion is a relatively common cardiac pathology associated with various infectious and non-infectious etiologies. In developed countries, viral pericarditis and idiopathic reasons are the two most common causes of this condition. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is prevalent in developing countries and is the most common cause of pericardial effusion in these regions. Parasitic and bacterial etiologies are encountered less frequently. In this report, we describe the case of a large pericardial effusion in a patient with HIV and latent tuberculosis (TB). Pericardiocentesis and analysis of pericardial fluid did not reveal any specific etiology, indicating viral or idiopathic pericarditis as an etiology. We also present an analysis of global data related to pericardial effusion in HIV/AIDS patients, and the impact that the increasing availability of antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide over the last three decades had had on it. The CD4 count has been described as an essential factor for the prognosis of this condition. Patients with lower CD4 count levels would be at higher risk of severe pericardial effusion.

Iatrogenic Causes of Cardiac Tamponade Resulting From Surgical Procedures: An Overview

Cardiac tamponade is one of the most severely life-threatening emergencies encountered, mainly because of its significant impact on the pumping capacity of the heart by compressing the cardiac chambers due to the rapid accumulation of blood, fluid, pus, or clots in the pericardial sac. These accumulations may be collected following traumas, malignancies, uremia, and many other medical conditions as well as surgical procedures. Numerous errors and medicolegal aspects have been identified in diagnosing and treating cardiac tamponade associated with cardiac-related procedures such as valve replacement surgeries, cardiac pacemaker implantation, pericardiocentesis, and other non-cardiac related procedures such as peri-hiatal surgeries. Patients taking anticoagulants or anticancer medications are especially susceptible to developing cardiac tamponade when undergoing surgical procedures, raising the question of preoperative screening to avoid errors. Misdiagnosis, treatment delay or failure to deliver the utmost quality of treatment, lack of complication screening and follow-ups for those at risk, surgeons rushing to complete cases, burnout, and other human factors are predispositions to the development of cardiac tamponade. Fortunately, most of these errors occurring within healthcare settings are avoidable and must be prevented for eliminating any risks to reduce the incidence and mortality of cardiac tamponade cases resulting from iatrogenic etiology. It is an intricate condition where precision and caution are crucial.

Postinfluenza Cardiac Tamponade: A Review of Published Case Reports

Increased vaccination rates and better understanding of influenza virus infection and clinical presentation have improved the disease's overall prognosis. However, influenza can cause life-threatening complications such as cardiac tamponade, which has only been documented in case reports. We searched PubMed/Medline and SCOPUS and EMBASE through December 2021 and identified 25 case reports on echocardiographically confirmed cardiac tamponade in our review of influenza-associated cardiac tamponade. Demographics, clinical presentation, investigations, management, and outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Among 25 cases reports [19 adults (47.6 ±15.12) and 6 pediatric (10.1 ± 4.5)], 15 (60%) were females and 10 (40%) were male patients. From flu infection to the occurrence of cardiac tamponade, the average duration was 7±8.5 days. Fever (64%), weakness (40%), dyspnea (24%), cough (32%), and chest pain (32%) were the most prevalent symptoms. Hypertension, diabetes, and renal failure were most commonly encountered comorbidities. Sinus tachycardia (11 cases, 44%) and ST-segment elevation (7 cases, 28%) were the most common ECG findings. Fourteen cases (56%) reported complications, the most common being hypotension (24%), cardiac arrest (16%), and acute kidney injury (8%). Mechanical circulatory/respiratory support was required for 14 cases (56%), the most common being intubation (9 cases, 64%). Outcomes included recovery in 88% and death in 3 cases. With improving vaccination rates, pericardial tamponade remains an infrequently encountered complication following influenza virus infection. The complicated cases appear within the first week of diagnosis, of which nearly half suffer from concurrent complications including cardiac arrest or acute kidney injury. Majority of patients recovered with timely diagnoses and therapeutic interventions.

The safety of pericardiocentesis in patients under antithrombotic therapy: A single-center experience

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis and to evaluate the safety of pericardiocentesis without discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in our hospital between 2012 and 2022. Patients were categorized into the Antithrombotic Group if they had used any antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs on the day of pericardiocentesis; otherwise they were categorized into the Non-antithrombotic Group. All procedures were performed by experienced cardiologists with echocardiographic guidance. Bleeding events were defined using the National Institutes of Health scale of adverse events.

Results

A total of 501 consecutive patients were identified and 70 cases were under antithrombotic drugs (Antithrombotic Group). Patients in Antithrombotic Group were older, had more comorbidities, presented with lower platelet counts and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (all p < 0.05). Malignancy was the most common etiology for pericardial effusion in both groups (28.6% in Antithrombotic Group and 54.7% in Non-antithrombotic Group) and tuberculosis was the second etiology in the Non-antithrombotic Group (21.9%), while procedure-related effusion (17.1%) accounted for the second cause in the Antithrombotic Group. Two patients in the Antithrombotic Group had mild oozing at the puncture site that resolved without interventions (2.9 vs. 0%, p = 0.019), and no bleeding events higher than Grade 1 occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Although antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs may put patients undergoing pericardiocentesis at theoretically higher risk of bleeding, our study demonstrated that they are not associated with increased major bleeding complications.

Precautions When Performing Pericardiocentesis in Patients with Cardiac Tamponade-complicated Malignancy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

A 51-year-old woman who had previously undergone left mastectomy for left breast cancer accompanied by multiple metastasis experienced worsening dyspnea. Physical and imaging assessments of the hemodynamics suggested cardiac tamponade, and emergency pericardiocentesis was successfully performed. However, immediately after the procedure, the patient's condition deteriorated rapidly and showed pulseless electrical activity. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography with continuous mechanical support demonstrated massive thrombi in both pulmonary arteries. An abrupt decrease in the central venous pressure and an increase in the venous return following pericardiocentesis might result in the migration of a deep venous thrombus and fatal acute pulmonary thromboembolism.

[What's new in pericardial disease?]

Pericardial disease represents a large diversity of inflammation related injury of the pericardium. Multifactorial causes may contribute to acute and recurrent pericarditis, pericardial effusion without major hemodynamic compromise, cardiac tamponade or constrictive pericarditis. Currently, inflammatory pericardial pathologies are observed in cases of SARS-CoV-2-infection or after vaccination. Beside established anti-inflammatory therapeutic strategies with NSAID, corticosteroids and colchicine, auto-inflammation and inflammasomes seam to offer more specific targets for advanced treatment options.

Pericardial Drain Placement in Interventional Radiology: An Overview

Pericardial effusions can occur from multiple different etiologies. Although often incidentally noted or clinically silent, pericardial effusions may cause significant hemodynamic compromise. In some of these patients, pericardiocentesis may be temporizing only and either repeat procedures or placement of pericardial drains may be preferable. While cardiologists typically perform pericardial drain placement, it is a procedure that may also be performed by interventional radiologists. This article describes for the interventional radiologist the indications and placement technique, as well as potential complications occurring from pericardial drain placement.

Predictors of Recurrence and Survival in Cancer Patients With Pericardial Effusion Requiring Pericardiocentesis

Aim

This study investigated the factors predicting survival and the recurrence of pericardial effusion (PE) requiring pericardiocentesis (PCC) in patients with cancer.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed the data of patients who underwent PCC for large PEs from 2010 to 2020 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The time to the first recurrent PE requiring PCC was the interval from the index PCC with pericardial drain placement to first recurrent PE requiring drainage (either repeated PCC or a pericardial window). Univariate and multivariate Fine-Gray models accounting for the competing risk of death were used to identify predictors of recurrent PE requiring drainage. Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of death.

Results

The study cohort included 418 patients with index PCC and pericardial drain placement, of whom 65 (16%) had recurrent PEs requiring drainage. The cumulative incidences of recurrent PE requiring drainage at 12 and 60 months were 15.0% and 15.6%, respectively. Younger age, anti-inflammatory medication use, and solid tumors were associated with an increased risk of recurrence of PE requiring drainage, and that echocardiographic evidence of tamponade at presentation and receipt of immunotherapy were associated with a decreased risk of recurrence. Factors predicting poor survival included older age, malignant effusion on cytology, non-use of anti-inflammatory agents, non-lymphoma cancers and primary lung cancer.

Conclusion

Among cancer patients with large PEs requiring drainage, young patients with solid tumors were more likely to experience recurrence, while elderly patients and those with lung cancer, malignant PE cytology, and non-use of anti-inflammatory agents showed worse survival.

Non hemorrhagic pericardial effusion from ibrutinib İn a patient without comorbidities

INTRODUCTION

The most common kind of leukemia in adults is chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). CLL is treated with ibrutinib. During the course of ibrutinib therapy, bleeding and cardiac arrhythmias may occur. Non-hemorrhagic adverse events are extremely infrequent in individuals using ibrutinib.

CASE REPORT

A 64 year-old man was diagnosed with CLL in June 2016. He was treated with 6 courses of FCR, he stayed in remission for 3 years and then relapsed. He achieved partial remission after two months of therapy with ibrutinib. The patient was admitted to the hospital with fever and shortness of breath. Pericardial tamponade and effusion was diagnosed during his evaluation.

MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME

Non-hemorrhagic exudative effusion was drained by pericardiocentesis and a pericardial catheter was inserted to drain pericardial effusion. In all pleural and pericardial effusion samples, pathological and flow cytometric examination revealed no atypical malignant cells for malignancy, including CLL. Infections, both bacterial and viral, were also undetectable in the samples, as were rheumatological markers of collagen vascular disease. Ibrutinib therapy was discontinued. The pericardial effusion and tamponade were linked to ibrutinib treatment after evaluating the adverse drug reaction probability scale with a total score of 6. Colchicine was administered to reduce the pericardial effusion. The catheter was removed; pericardial effusion did not reoccur during follow up visits.

DISCUSSION

Serious adverse events of ibrutinib are seen when treating CLL patients. This group of individuals should be closely monitored for potentially serious complications such as pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade.

Outcomes of Patients with and without Malignancy Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion

(1) Background: This study aimed to evaluate the etiologies and clinical outcomes of patients with pericardial effusion (PE) treated with echo-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis. (2) Methods: Between July 2010 and December 2020, a total of 502 patients underwent echo-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis for PE at our hospital. The reasons for PE were malignancy (N = 277), and non-malignancy (N = 225). The comorbidities, complications, and all-cause mortality were compared between the malignancy and non-malignancy groups. (3) Results: In multivariable Cox regression analyses for 1-year mortality, malignancy related PE, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal cancer, and metastatic status were positive predictors. A higher incidence of in-hospital and 1-year mortality were observed in patients with malignancy-related PE than with non-malignancy-related PE. In patients with malignancy-related PE, the Kaplan-Meier curve of 1-year all-cause mortality significantly differed between patients with or without metastasis; however, PE with or without malignant cells did not influence the prognosis. (4) Conclusions: In the patients with large PE requiring percutaneous pericardiocentesis, malignancy-related PE, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal cancer, and metastatic status were positive predictors of 1-year mortality. In patients with malignancy, a higher incidence of all-cause mortality was noted in patients with metastasis but did not differ between the groups with and without malignant cells in PE.

Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Cancer Patients Who Developed Constrictive Physiology after Pericardiocentesis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the characteristics and clinical outcomes of cancer patients who developed constrictive physiology (CP) after percutaneous pericardiocentesis.

METHODS

One-hundred thirty-three cancer patients who underwent pericardiocentesis were divided into 2 groups according to follow-up echocardiography (CP vs. non-CP). The clinical history, imaging findings, and laboratory results, and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

CP developed in 49 (36.8%) patients after pericardiocentesis. The CP group had a more frequent history of radiation therapy. Pericardial enhancement and malignant masses abutting the pericardium were more frequently observed in the CP group. Fever and ST segment elevation were more frequent in the CP group, with higher C-reactive protein levels (6.6±4.3mg/dL vs. 3.3±2.5mg/dL, p<0.001). Pericardial fluid leukocytes counts were significantly higher, and positive cytology was more frequent in the CP group. In baseline echocardiography before pericardiocentesis, medial e' velocity was significantly higher in the CP group (8.6±2.1cm/s vs. 6.5±2.3cm/s, p<0.001), and respirophasic ventricular septal shift, prominent expiratory hepatic venous flow reversal, pericardial adhesion, and loculated pericardial fluid were also more frequent. The risk of all-cause death was significantly high in the CP group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval,1.10-2.13; p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CP frequently develops after pericardiocentesis, and it is associated with poor survival in cancer patients. Several clinical signs, imaging, and laboratory findings suggestive of pericardial inflammation and/or direct malignant pericardial invasion are frequently observed and could be used as predictors of CP development.

Evaluation and management of cancer patients presenting with acute cardiovascular disease: a Consensus Document of the Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) association and the ESC council of Cardio-Oncology-Part 1: acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases

Advances in treatment, common cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and the ageing of the population have led to an increasing number of cancer patients presenting with acute CV diseases. These events may be related to the cancer itself or the cancer treatment. Acute cardiac care specialists must be aware of these acute CV complications and be able to manage them. This may require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. We summarize the most common acute CV complications of cytotoxic, targeted, and immune-based therapies. This is followed by a proposal for a multidisciplinary approach where acute cardiologists work close together with the treating oncologists, haematologists, and radiation specialists, especially in situations where immediate therapeutic decisions are needed. In this first part, we further focus on the management of acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases in patients with cancer.

Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Primary Lung Adenocarcinoma Presenting With Pericardial Effusion and Tamponade in a COVID-19 Patient: A Case Report

Primary lung cancer usually presents in older adults with a smoking history. However, there is an estimated incidence of 15-20% among men who have never smoked. The diagnosis of lung malignancy can often be incidental. Moreover, cardiac tamponade can be an initial presentation of malignancy, especially lung cancer, as these are the most common tumors that involve the pericardium. Here, we present a 54-year-old male with no known medical history presented with dyspnea on exertion. He was found to have a large pericardial effusion with tamponade physiology on a bedside echocardiogram. He was also found to have bilateral deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism on admission. The patient underwent an emergent pericardiocentesis due to hemodynamic compromise, and pericardial fluid cytology suggested adenocarcinoma with lung primary. Subsequently, gene testing revealed anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive adenocarcinoma of the lung. The patient was discharged home with close oncology follow-up. It is imperative to recognize malignant pericardial effusion as one of the causes of dyspnea. Emergent pericardiocentesis may be needed in case of hemodynamic compromise and tenuous clinical status.

Percutaneous pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion: predictors of mortality and outcomes

Pericardial effusion can dangerously precipitate patient's hemodynamic stability and requires prompt intervention in case of tamponade. We investigated potential predictors of in-hospital mortality, a composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, pericardiocentesis-related complications, and the need for emergency cardiac surgery and all-cause mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis. This is an observational, retrospective, single-center study on patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis (2010-2019). We enrolled 81 consecutive patients. Median age was 71.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 58.1-78.1 years) and 51 (63%) were male. Most of the pericardiocentesis were performed in an urgency setting (76.5%) for cardiac tamponade (77.8%). The most common etiology was idiopathic (33.3%) followed by neoplastic (22.2%). In-hospital mortality was 14.8% while mortality during follow-up (mean 17.1 months) was 44.4%. Only hemodynamic instability (i.e., cardiogenic shock, hypotension refractory to fluid challenge therapy and inotropes) was associated with in-hospital mortality at the univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] 7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.76-29.4). Non-neoplastic/non-idiopathic etiology and hemodynamic instability were associated with the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, need for emergency cardiac surgery, or pericardiocentesis-related complications (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.65-20.01, and OR 5.81, 95% CI 2.11-15.97, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for possible confounding variables (age, coronary artery disease, and hemodynamic instability) showed that neoplastic etiology was independently associated with medium-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 4.05, 95% CI 1.45-11.36). In a real-world population treated with pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion, in-hospital adverse outcomes and medium-term mortality are consistent, in particular for patients presenting with hemodynamic instability or neoplastic pericardial effusion.

Epstein-Barr Virus DNA in Pericardial Effusion Causing Subacute Cardiac Tamponade

•

Cardiac tamponade with hemodynamic compromise is an emergency, regardless of cause.

•

The causes of pericardial disease vary widely with population and geography.

•

Some causes of pericarditis require specific treatment and should be considered.

•

EBV is a rarely described infectious cause of pericardial effusion.

•

Both echocardiography and pericardiocentesis were very difficult in this case.

Malignant Müllerian Adenocarcinoma Manifesting With Cardiac Tamponade and Pleural Effusion

A 54-year-old woman with a past medical history of untreated stage IV Müllerian adenocarcinoma presented for dyspnea. She was found to have a large right-sided pleural effusion through basic radiology and clinically improved after a CT-guided therapeutic thoracocentesis. However, the patient rapidly deteriorated shortly afterward. A broader workup that included echocardiography revealed a large pericardial effusion with tamponade physiology. The patient underwent an emergent pericardiocentesis, which briefly improved hemodynamics, but her clinical status kept declining until she eventually expired. Subsequent cytology of the pleural and pericardial fluid revealed malignant cells of Müllerian origin.

Impact of pericardial fluid glucose level and computed tomography attenuation values on diagnosis of malignancy-related pericardial effusion

Background

We evaluated malignancy according to the characteristics of pericardial fluid in symptomatic Japanese patients undergoing pericardiocentesis and computed tomography (CT).

Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study of 125 symptomatic patients undergoing pericardiocentesis. The patients were classified into two groups: a malignancy group and a non-malignancy group, according to the primary disease and cytology of the pericardial effusion (PE). We compared the pericardial fluid sample and CT measurements between both groups.

Results

All patients were diagnosed as having exudative PE by Light’s criteria. PE with malignant cells was demonstrated in 76.8% of the malignancy group patients. Pericardial to serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) ratio > 0.6, as one of Light’s criteria, was associated with malignancy (p = 0.017). Lower serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration was also associated with malignancy (BNP: 126.9 ± 89.8 pg/ml vs 409.2 ± 97.7 pg/ml, malignancy vs non-malignancy groups, respectively; p = 0.037). A significant difference was observed in pericardial fluid glucose level between the malignancy and non-malignancy groups (pericardial fluid glucose: 78.24 ± 48.29 mg/dl vs 98.41 ± 44.85, respectively; p = 0.048). Moreover, CT attenuation values (Hounsfield units (HU)) tended to be higher in the malignancy group vs the non-malignancy group (22.7 [interquartile range (IQR), 17.4–26.0] vs 17.4 [IQR, 13.7–26.4], respectively; p = 0.08). The sensitivity and specificity of pericardial fluid glucose level ≤ 70 mg/dl and CT attenuation values > 20 HU were 40.9% and 89.6%, respectively, in the malignancy group. The positive- and negative predictive values of pericardial fluid glucose level ≤ 70 mg/dl and CT attenuation values > 20 HU were 85.7% and 50.0%, respectively, in the malignancy group. Pericardial fluid glucose level ≤ 70 mg/dl and CT attenuation values > 20 HU were cutoff values associated with malignancy (p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Lower pericardial fluid glucose level with higher CT attenuation values may suggest malignancy-related PE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02091-6.

An Unusual Case of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis Presenting as Impending Cardiac Tamponade in a Patient with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

Patient: Male, 52-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis

Symptoms: Acute epigastric pain • confusion • diarrhea • episodic gastrointestinal discomfort • fatigue • nausea • vomiting

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Radiographic-assisted pericardiocentesis

Specialty: Hematology

Associated Pleural and Pericardial Effusions: An Extensive Differential Explored

Concurrent pleural and pericardial effusions are not an unusual finding, but their differential diagnosis remains uncertain. Medline-based review identified an extensive list of infectious, inflammatory, neoplastic, iatrogenic, and myriad other etiologies. A single retrospective study had addressed this presentation. Several principles of a diagnostic workup are suggested, acknowledging that a significant minority of patients may not require a comprehensive workup and remain 'idiopathic'.

Lung Adenocarcinoma Presenting as Malignant Pericardial Effusion/Tamponade

Lung cancers are the most common primary tumors that involve the pericardium with a prevalence of up to 50%. Usually, pericardial involvement goes undetected with almost 10%-12% found among all cancer related autopsies. Rarely pericardial effusions can be the initial site of metastasis and initial manifestation of a primary tumor. In our case, we report a 57-year-old female presenting with cardiac tamponade and subsequent testing was done which revealed lung adenocarcinoma. Malignant pericardial effusions are often silent, but certain times can present with symptoms of shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, arrhythmias, and rarely as pericardial tamponade. A high index of suspicion is required when a patient presents with tamponade to diagnose malignancy. Emergent pericardiocentesis may be warranted depending on the clinical presentation but quite often, patients tend to have a poor prognosis despite therapy given the extent of disease.

Tegafur-uracil-induced pericardial effusion during adjuvant chemotherapy for resected lung adenocarcinoma: A case report

In Japan, oral administration of tegafur‐uracil is recommended as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients diagnosed with primary lung adenocarcinomas of >2 cm size and staged as IA, IB, and IIA. Reports on chemotherapy‐induced pericardial effusion are rare. Herein, we report a rare case of tegafur‐uracil‐induced pericardial effusion during postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for primary lung cancer. A 60‐year‐old man underwent left lower lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection for left lower lung adenocarcinoma. Lung cancer was staged as IB, and tegafur‐uracil was administered as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy from 1 month after the surgery. A computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a pericardial effusion 5 months after the surgery. A malignant pericardial effusion was suspected, and tegafur‐uracil was discontinued. Pericardiocentesis could not be performed owing to a small amount of pericardial effusion. An ¹⁸F‐fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/CT scan revealed no abnormal FDG uptake. During a short follow‐up period after discontinuation of tegafur‐uracil, a CT scan revealed a decrease in pericardial effusion, suggesting that the pericardial effusion was induced by tegafur‐uracil. Follow‐up of pericardial effusion is required while administering tegafur‐uracil. In cases of pericardial effusion without symptoms and no suspicious metastatic lesions in other organs, we should be concerned about tegafur‐uracil‐induced pericardial effusion.

Pericardiocentesis Indications and Complications: A Retrospective Observational Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan

INTRODUCTION

Pericardiocentesis is crucial for the diagnosis and management of diseases responsible for significant pericardial effusions. Pericardiocentesis was performed the first time by Riolanus for cardiac tamponade. He described the process of trephination of the sternum to remove the abnormally accumulated fluid from the pericardial space. However, with the advancement of expertise in echocardiography assisted procedures, echocardiography-guided diagnostic and therapeutic pericardiocentesis is now considered standard clinical practice in the treatment of pericardial effusions.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to study different causes of pericardial effusion and indications of pericardiocentesis as well as complications associated with it in our population.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study done at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. We reviewed hospital record files of 66 patients admitted to Aga Khan University Hospital from January 2010 to December 2019 who underwent pericardiocentesis.

RESULTS

Out of 66 patients, 43 (65.2%) were male. The mean age of the study population was 48.59±18.9 years and 41 (62.1%) of them had underlying active malignancy with hematological malignancies being most common followed by lung carcinoma. In the majority of patients (71.2%), pericardiocentesis was performed at the bedside, and the rest of them (28.8%) underwent pericardiocentesis in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Of all the patients, 46 (69.7%) underwent pericardiocentesis under echocardiography guidance and 18 (27.3%) required fluoroscopy. Successful pericardiocentesis was performed in 65 (98.5%) of the patients, two (3%) patients developed access site infection and only one (1.5%) patient became hemodynamically unstable while undergoing pericardiocentesis Conclusion: Malignancy, predominantly lymphoma, is the most common cause of pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. Dyspnea is the most common symptom of presentation with cardiac tamponade. Echocardiography is the commonly used imaging modality for pericardiocentesis. Bedside setting is the most common setting used for pericardiocentesis. Imaging guided pericardiocentesis has a very high success and low complication rate.

Cytology positive pericardial effusion causing tamponade in patients with high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary

•

Three patients with cytology positive pericardial effusions from high grade serous carcinoma.

•

Patients’ conditions amenable to treatment with chemotherapy after effusion symptom improvement.

•

Patient with pericardial effusion from high grade serous ovarian cancer post a poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor.

Echo-Guided Pericardiocentesis: When and How Should It Be Performed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Abnormal accumulation of pericardial fluid is a common cardiac condition with different etiologies. Draining of the pericardial fluid (pericardiocentesis) is often indicated for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and is performed in an elective or emergent setting. Echocardiography is the primary imaging method for diagnosing, localizing, and quantifying pericardial effusion as well as evaluating its hemodynamic effects, including the presence of cardiac tamponade. In this manuscript, we review the indications for pericardiocentesis and provide practical step-by-step guidance for echo-guided pericardiocentesis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Echo-guidance is an effective method to improve the safety and efficacy of pericardiocentesis. In experienced hands and with a stepwise approach, procedural outcomes are excellent, and complication rates are very low. Asymptomatic small idiopathic effusions have a benign course and can be left untreated. Prolonged drainage with an indwelling pericardial catheter is key for preventing fluid re-accumulation, and the use of colchicine to prevent fluid recurrence is encouraged whenever possible. Understanding how to evaluate the significance of a pericardial effusion as well as the procedural steps in the performance of a pericardiocentesis are essential for optimal outcomes in treating patients with pericardial effusions and tamponade.

Etiology of Pericardial Effusion and Outcomes Post Pericardiocentesis in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia: A Single-center Experience

Background Pericardial effusion is the accumulation of blood or excess fluid in the cavity between the heart and the pericardium sac. Pericardial effusion can be caused by several etiologies, including malignant and non-malignant causes. Pericardiocentesis is the gold standard assessment method for pericardial effusion etiology. The aim of this study was to identify the long-term outcome of patients who presented with massive pericardial effusion and underwent pericardiocentesis at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, a large tertiary hospital in the western part of Saudi Arabia. Methods This is a single-center retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between January 2013 to December 2018. Data were collected from patient's charts; the clinical and echocardiographic findings, alongside with pericardial fluid analysis, were collected. Procedure and patients outcomes were obtained and reported. Results Of the 107 patients with pericardial effusion, 39 patients had moderate to severe pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. The mean age was 52 years, and 56.4% were females. The most common chronic disease was hypertension and the presence of metastasis. The most common cause of pericardial effusion was a malignancy. A majority of patients had severe pericardial effusion. Many patients had tamponade (69.6%). Patients with malignant pericardial effusion had a median survival of 54 days. Conclusion Etiologies of pericardial effusion requiring drainage depend on the population studied. Patients with malignant effusions have worse outcomes than non-malignant effusion. Pericardiocentesis is required to ascertain the cause and risk-stratify patients.

Medicolegal Characteristics of Cardiac Tamponade Litigation: A Review of the LexisNexis Academic Database

OBJECTIVE

To review, describe, and analyze medicolegal literature involving cases of cardiac tamponade.

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no studies known to these authors assessing the outcome patterns of medicolegal cases involving patients with cardiac tamponade. This potentially lethal condition may have serious consequences on both patients and clinicians. Thus, the literature was reviewed for patterns of liability and medical outcomes in patients who developed cardiac tamponade.

METHODS

Legal case opinions were reviewed from LexisNexis Academic that contained the search term "tamponade"; case characteristics, litigation outcomes, and medical outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

230 case opinions were reviewed. 143 involved cardiac tamponade. Of these cases, 77 were medical malpractice cases, 30 were criminal cases, 11 were insurance claims, and the rest were other types. In malpractice cases, 35 (45%) patients were male, 69 (90%) formally named at least one doctor as a defendant, 54 (70%) claimed iatrogenicity as a cause of tamponade, and surgeons were the most commonly named defendants at 36 cases (47%). Open surgical drainage was the most common treatment at 28 (36%) cases and death was the outcome in 60 (78%) cases. Judgements were in favor of at least one doctor in 29 (42%) cases, against at least one doctor in 13 (19%) cases, and 12 (17%) cases involved a settlement by a physician.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes previously unknown medicolegal characteristics of cardiac tamponade cases.

Pericardial diseases in patients with hypothyroidism

Hypothyroidism is a well-known cause of pericardial effusion (with an incidence of 3%-37%) and can cause cardiac tamponade in severe cases. In this review, we present the current knowledge on the epidemiology of hypothyroid-induced pericardial diseases, the mechanism through which low thyroid hormone levels affect the pericardium, the associated clinical manifestations, diagnostic tests and management options. Hypothyroidism causes pericardial effusion through increased permeability of the epicardial vessels and decreased lymphatic drainage of albumin, resulting in accumulation of fluid in the pericardial space. Interestingly, autoimmunity does not seem to play a major role in the pathophysiology, and a majority of effusions are asymptomatic due to slow fluid accumulation. The diagnosis is generally made when the pericardial disease is associated with an elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone level, and other secondary causes are excluded. Management consists of thyroid replacement therapy, along with pericardial drainage in case of tamponade.In conclusion, hypothyroidism-induced pericardial diseases are underdiagnosed. Initiating treatment early in the disease process and preventing complications relies on early diagnosis through systematic screening per guidelines.

Clinical characteristics and prognosis of cardiac tamponade patients: 5‑year experience at a tertiary center

BACKGROUND

Cardiac tamponade (CT) is characterized by compression of the cardiac chambers due to pericardial fluid accumulation. The etiology and prognosis may vary in different regions, and thus patient series from various regions can be useful for exploring the etiological and prognostic disparities. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics of patients with imminent CT, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of biochemical, microbiologic, and pathologic laboratory analysis, and to ascertain the prognosis of CT patients.

METHODS

We enrolled all patients with imminent CT who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis between July 2012 and December 2017 in this retrospective study. The patients were classified into three etiology groups: (a) malignancy (MRCT); (b) iatrogenic/mechanical complication of myocardial infarction (IMCT); and (c) other causes (OCT). Clinical information, laboratory findings, and survival data were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 186 pericardiocentesis procedures were performed on 153 consecutive patients with CT. The median follow-up was 137 days (range: 1-1937). The MRCT group had the highest mortality rate (79%) in 12 months, while the OCT group had the lowest rate (27%). We determined that increased age, higher serum urea levels, and malignancy-related CT were independent predictors of mortality. The mortality rates of the MRCT and IMCT groups were similar, with both of them being significantly higher than the rate of the OCT group. In all, 15 patients were diagnosed with a new malignancy via pericardial fluid cytology.

CONCLUSION

Patients in the MRCT and IMCT groups had a poor prognosis. The presence of malignancy was found to be the most powerful predictor of mortality in CT patients.

A contemporary look at pericardiocentesis

Percutaneous drainage is the default strategy for evacuating a pericardial effusion. A pericardiocentesis can be necessary or required in a wide variety of clinical settings ranging from urgent tamponade to relieve in iatrogenic hemorrhagic effusions in the electrophysiology or catheterization room, to planned diagnostic procedures in patients with suspected or known malignancy or infections. With the help of several procedural improvements over the past decades, echocardiography and fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis has become the standard intervention for evacuating pericardial effusions, as well as an essential tool in the diagnostic work-up of an unexplained pericardial effusion. When performed by skilled physicians assisted by appropriate imaging it is a very safe procedure, and provided that an indwelling catheter is placed, it is also very effective with an acceptably low risk of recurrences. In this review, the indications and standard techniques for pericardiocentesis are discussed, as well as their consequences for patients with iatrogenic and malignant effusions.

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.