689例心包积液病因及误诊分析

目的：分析心包积液病因变化及误诊原因。方法：病例回顾分析。结果：结核性、非特异性、肿瘤性、心力衰竭性及尿毒症性心包积液分别占６８９例心包积液的２５．５％、１２．６％、１２．２％、６．５％和６．１％，其他各种原因所致者合计占３７．１％。结核性心包积液由８０年代中期以前的２９．０％降至８０年代中期以后的２２．３％（Ｐ＜０．０５），而肿瘤性心包积液则由９．９％升至１４．１％（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：结核性心包积液比例明显下降，而肿瘤性心包积液所占比例则明显上升。心包积液病因误诊主要是将肿瘤性心包积液误诊为其他性质心包积液     

115例心包积液患者病因及误诊分析

目的分析115例心包积液患者的病因变化及误诊原因。方法收集我院1995～2004年收治的115例心包积液患者的临床资料并进行回顾性分析。结果心包积液常见病因依次为肿瘤性(19.1%)、结核性(18.3%)、非特异性(13.9%)、心力衰竭性(12.2%)、尿毒症性(6.1%)和结缔组织疾病(5.2%),其他各种原因引起者占14.8%,肿瘤已成为心包积液的首要病因。误诊8例。结论肿瘤是心包积液的首要病因。误诊的主要原因是将肿瘤性心包积液诊断为其他性质的心包积液。     

大量心包积液病因影响因素的回顾性分析

目的 收集并分析41例大量心包积液患者病因的影响因素，为诊治大量心包积液提供更为清晰诊疗思路。方法 根据2015年欧洲心血管病学会《心包疾病的诊断和治疗指南》诊断大量心包积液的标准，收集2017.1.1-2019.10.1期间入住福建省立医院及福建省立金山医院的大量心包积液患者41例，根据其病因诊断将所有入组对象分为4组：结核性心包积液组（TB组）、恶性肿瘤性心包积液组（MT组）、非TB感染性心包积液组（NTB组）及其他病因心包积液组（OE组）。采用SPSS统计软件分析所有入组患者心包积液患者病因的影响因素。结果 41例大量心包积液患者中男性24人，女性17人，平均年龄为60.3±14.9岁。TB组、MT组、NTB组及OE组患者分别占24.4%，24.4%，29.3%，21.9%。按照Light标准的定义，大量心包积病例中97.6%为渗出液。结核性心包积液的腺苷脱氨酶水平最高，达57.0±37.3U/L，远高于其他病因所致的心包积液（P<0.01）。腺苷脱氨酶诊断结核性心包积液的ROC曲线下面积0.961，最佳诊断切点为20.5U/L，此时敏感性达100%，特异性达80.6%。多元Logistics回归分析显示大量心包积液病因的主要影响因素有血红蛋白、心包积液腺苷脱氨酶水平和心包积液癌胚抗原水平。结论 本研究发现大量心包积液最常见病因是结核和恶性肿瘤，腺苷脱氨酶是诊断结核性心包积液的敏感指标，Light标准无法鉴别大量心包积液的病因，血红蛋白、心包积液腺苷脱氨酶和心包积液癌胚抗原是影响大量心包积液病因判定的重要指标，具有一定临床指导意义。     

心包积液住院患者的病因分析(附384例报告)

目的:分析近20年间384例心包积液患者的病因,探究其变化规律。方法:对我院1988～2007年收治的384例心包积液患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。通过分析其病因构成,并按时间将其分组,了解病因构成是否发生改变。结果:肿瘤性、结核性、心力衰竭性和非特异性占心包积液病因的前4位,分别占24.5%、21.3%、14.6%、8.9%,其中结核性心包积液比例由10年前的26.8%降为18.2%(P<0.05),而肿瘤性心包积液则由10年前18.3%升为28.1%(P<0.05)。结论:不同时期病因构成不同,肿瘤已成为当前心包积液的首要病因。     

102例心包积液患者临床病因分析

目的回顾性总结分析心包积液患者的病因分布特点及临床类型,探究其变化规律,提高病因诊断。方法对我院2001年01月至2008年12月因心包积液住院的102名患者的临床资料进行分析。结果心包积液常见病因依次为肿瘤（25．5％）,结核（22．6％）,心力衰竭（19．4％）,非特异性（13．8％）,尿毒症（9．9％）和结缔组织疾病（6．3％）,其他原因引起者占（2．5％）。结论引起心包积液的首要病因为肿瘤,其次为结核;随着诊疗水平的提高,心包积液的病因分布更趋广泛。原因不明的心包积液在排除恶性肿瘤、甲状腺功能减退等常见病因的前提下,试验性抗结核治疗有助于明确诊断。     

85例血性心包积液的病因及诊断方法分析

目的:总结分析血性心包积液的病因及其诊断方法,为诊断和鉴别诊断提供指导性资料。方法:对85例血性心包积液患者的临床表现、影像学检查、实验室检查结果进行回顾分析。结果:85例血性心包积液的病因中,肿瘤性41例(48.23%)、结核性27例(31.76%)、其他各种原因引起者17例(20.01%)。肿瘤性心包积液中癌胚抗原的平均值173μg/L,显著高于结核性心包积液的平均值0.62μg/L;结核性心包积液腺苷脱氢酶平均值44.5U/L,显著高于癌性心包积液平均值15U/L;结核性心包积液患者中心包积液和血液抗结核抗体(kjhkt)检测阳性率分别为62.5%和75%,显著高于肿瘤性心包积液患者(均为阴性)。结论:恶性肿瘤和结核是血性心包积液的主要病因。心包积液的脱落细胞学检查和腺苷脱氢酶、癌胚抗原、kjhkt等项实验室检查为血性心包积液病因诊断和鉴别诊断的主要手段,联合应用可提高诊断的准确性。     

结核γ-干扰素酶联免疫斑点检测在结核性心包积液诊断中的应用

目的 探讨结核菌特异性γ-干扰素（interferon-gamma,IFN-γ）酶联免疫斑点（enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot,ELISPOT）检测对结核性心包积液的诊断价值.方法 采用结核菌特异性IFN-γ ELISPOT技术同时检测20例结核性心包积液患者（TP组）和14例非结核性心包积液患者（Non-TP组）外周血单核细胞（peripheral blood mononuclear cells,PBMC）及心包积液单核细胞（pleural effusion mononuclear cells,PEMC）中结核菌特异性IFN-γ水平.结果 TP组PBMC和PEMC结核菌特异性IFN-γ水平均显著高于Non-TP组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01,P＜0.01）.TP组心包积液中结核菌特异性IFN-y水平显著高于外周血IFN-γ水平,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01,P＜0.01）.PBMC ELISPOT检测结核性心包积液的敏感性和特异性分别为80.0％和85.7％;而PEMC ELISPOT敏感性和特异性为90.0％和85.7％.结论 结核菌特异性IFN-γELISPOT技术对结核性心包积液诊断和鉴别诊断具有很好的辅助价值.     

套式聚合酶链反应快速诊断结核性心包炎

快速诊断结核性心包炎以便及早抗痨治疗防止缩窄性心包炎的发生。应用套式聚合酶链反应（Ｎｅｓｔｅｄ－ ＰＣＲ） 、直接涂片、培养对８３ 例心包积液标本进行结核菌检测。结果：结核性心包积液Ｎｅｓｔｅｄ － ＰＣＲ阳性率为７２ ．５ ％ 、培养阳性率为１９ ．６ ％ 、涂片镜检阳性率为２３ ．５ ％ 。非结核性心包积液无１ 例阳性。Ｎｅｓｔｅｄ－ ＰＣＲ特异性好、敏感性强并可能避免一般聚合酶链反应（ＰＣＲ） 所出现的假阳性     

心包穿刺导管引流的方法和经验

1987年以来,我们共施行心包穿刺、心包内置管引流15例(25例次)。该方法用于结核性心包炎3例,慢性特发性心包积液3例,金黄色葡萄球菌败血症心包炎2例,心肌梗塞后心包积液2例,非特异性心包炎2例,肿瘤性心包积液2例,结缔组织疾病1例。     

纤维心包镜在中大量心包积液病因诊断中的应用

目的观察纤维心包镜在中大量心包积液诊断中的作用。方法对188例中大量心包积液病因不明患者进行剑突下心包开窗术及纤维心包镜检查,明确心包积液病因及镜下表现。结果癌性心包炎90例,心包积液多为血性,符合镜下特征51例,临床病因诊断符合率56.7%;非特异性心包炎67例,诊断符合率56.7%;结核性心包炎22例,诊断符合率63.6%;化脓性心包炎8例,诊断符合率100%。术中曾出现心率减慢、血压偏低7例,气胸6例,腹膜损伤3例,偶发室性期前收缩30例,减压性肺水肿6例,经相应治疗或自行缓解。结论纤维心包镜对中大量心包积液的病因诊断有较大的实用价值。     

Bloody pericardial effusion in patients with cardiac tamponade: is the cause cancerous, tuberculous, or iatrogenic in the 1990s?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The decrease in incidence of tuberculosis, along with the increase in invasive cardiovascular procedures, may have changed the frequency of causes of bloody pericardial effusion associated with cardiac tamponade, although this is not yet recognized by medical textbooks. We analyzed the causes of bloody pericardial effusion in the clinical setting of cardiac tamponade in the 1990s; patients' survival; the effect of laboratory results on discharge diagnosis; and how often bloody pericardial effusion is a presenting manifestation of a new malignancy or tuberculosis. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, single-center study. SETTING: A community hospital. PATIENTS: The charts of all patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade and had bloody pericardial effusion were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of 150 patients who had pericardiocentesis for relieving cardiac tamponade, 96 patients (64%) had a bloody pericardial effusion. The most common cause of bloody pericardial effusion was iatrogenic disease (31%), namely, secondary to invasive cardiac procedures. The other common causes were malignancy (26%), complications of atherosclerotic heart disease (11%), and idiopathic disease (10%). Tuberculosis was detected as a cause of bloody pericardial effusion in one patient and presumed to be the cause in another patient. Bloody pericardial effusion was found to be a presenting manifestation of a newly diagnosed malignancy in two patients. The patients in the idiopathic and iatrogenic groups were all alive and had no recurrence of pericardial effusion at 24 +/- 27 and 33 +/- 21 months after hospital discharge, respectively, whereas 80% of patients with malignancy-related bloody effusions died within 8 +/- 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In a patient population that is reasonably representative of that in most community hospitals in the United States, the most common cause of bloody pericardial effusion in patients with signs or symptoms of cardiac tamponade is now iatrogenic disease. Of the noniatrogenic causes, malignancy, complications of acute myocardial infarction, and idiopathic disease predominated. Hemorrhagic tuberculous pericardial effusions are uncommon and may likely reflect a low incidence of cardiac tuberculosis in community hospitals in the United States.     

老年心包积液患者病因的调查分析

目的了解老年心包积液患者随年龄增大其病因构成的变化情况。方法450例确诊为心包积液的住院患者按年龄分为非老年(0~59岁)组,老年(60~79岁)组和高龄老年(80岁以上)组,建立心包积液住院患者临床资料数据库,对比分析各组的病因构成。结果随着年龄的增大,心包积液病因构成也发生着变化。所有患者前6位的基础病因为肿瘤(22.22%)、结核(19.11%)、心力衰竭(16.44%)、肾功能不全(8.22%)、非特异性心包炎(8%)和心脏术后并发症(7.78%),老年组是肿瘤(23.5%)、心力衰竭(19.13%)、结核(14.75%)、非特异性心包炎(11.48%)、肺部感染(8.74%)和肾功能不全(6.01%),高龄老年组心包积液病因构成相对集中,前4位的病因是心力衰竭(34.62%)、肺部感染(19.23%)、肿瘤(15.38%)、肾功能衰竭(15.38%)。结论心包积液的病因随患者年龄老化,肿瘤、心力衰竭、肺部感染比例呈逐步上升趋势,结核则呈下降走势。在高龄老人,心肺功能异常导致心包积液已经接近一半。     

An unusual cause of a large fibrinous pericardial effusion

The commonest cause of a large fibrinous pericardial effusion in sub-Saharan Africa is tuberculosis. There are, however, limited resources available for making a definitive diagnosis of tuberculous pericarditis. The diagnosis is largely based on clinical criteria. There is a risk of misdiagnosing lesscommon causes of large fibrinous pericardial effusions. We present a patient who had a pericardial angiosarcoma that was initially thought to be a tuberculous pericardial effusion, and discuss the challenges in making a definitive diagnosis of tuberculosis.     

Pericardial tamponade and large pericardial effusions: causal factors and efficacy of percutaneous catheter drainage in 50 patients

In 50 patients treated from January 1998 through March 2002 for pericardial effusion and tamponade, we retrospectively investigated the efficacy of percutaneous placement of an indwelling pericardial catheter guided by 2-dimensional echocardiography and fluoroscopy. We also investigated causation. In 80% of the patients, we were able to determine specific causes through clinical, serologic, and cytologic investigation: cancer in 15 patients, chronic renal failure in 11, systemic lupus erythematosus in 2 rheumatoid arthritis in 2, Dressler syndrome in 2, tuberculosis in 1, blunt chest trauma in 1, purulent pericarditis in 1, and probably viral pericarditis in 5. No specific cause could be determined in 10 patients (20%). We did not observe any complication due to the procedure. Two patients died during hospitalization. After hospitalization, 9 patients with metastatic cancer died within 3 months. A 2nd percutaneous drainage procedure was required in 2 cancer patients. Recurrence of pericardial effusion and tamponade and the requirement of pericardiectomy occurred in 2 patients with perfusion of unknown cause and in 1 patient with perfusion due to rheumatoid arthritis. Histologic examination of pericardial tissue in patients with idiopathic disease showed fibrinous pericarditis but no causal factor. In the group with idiopathic pericardial effusion, 2 patients with multiple mediastinal lymphadenopathy underwent mediastinal exploration; biopsy revealed nonspecific lymphadenitis and fibrinous pericarditis. In patients with large pericardial effusions and tamponade, the specific cause was in most cases already known or obtained by initial clinical and laboratory investigation. Sufficient cardiac decompression was achieved by percutaneous pigtail catheter drainage.     

Should we try to determine the specific cause of cardiac tamponade?

INTRODUCTION: The causes of cardiac tamponade vary and it has been suggested that underlying causes should be sought in all cases. The purpose of this study was to determine the causes of cardiac tamponade in our environment, distinguishing between specific and idiopathic causes, and analyzing the proportion and causes in the subgroup of patients with relapsing tamponade. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We retrospectively studied all patients who underwent therapeutic pericardiocentesis between 1985 and 2001. The clinical and radiographic features and macroscopic characteristics of the pericardial fluid were analyzed. The final diagnosis in each patient was based on the clinical history, follow-up, pericardial fluid cytology, and pericardial biopsy, if available. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included (52 men/44 women), mean age 56.1 16.1 years. The cause of pericardial effusion was neoplasm in 50 patients (52.1%), 14 idiopathic pericarditis (14.6%), 12 renal failure (12.5%), 7 iatrogenic cases (7.3%), 4 mechanical tamponades (4.2%), 2 tuberculosis (2.1%), and 7 other causes (7.3%). Thirty-five patients had relapsing tamponade; only 2 of them had idiopathic pericarditis (5.7%). We found no significant differences in age, development time, extracted volume or fluid features between tamponade of specific or idiopathic origin. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cardiac tamponades in our series had a specific cause. This made it necessary to identify a specific underlying cause in each case, especially in relapsing effusions. However, we did not find any variable suggestive of the cause of the disease.     

Etiology and prognostic implications of a large pericardial effusion in men

To assess the etiology and prognosis of a large pericardial effusion, we reviewed 25 consecutive patients who presented with a large pericardial effusion and underwent a drainage procedure. Large pericardial effusion was defined as: (1) an echo-free space greater than or equal to 10 mm anteriorly and posteriorly by M-mode echocardiography and (2) removal of greater than or equal to 350 ml of fluid at pericardial drainage. The etiologies of large pericardial effusion were: neoplastic (36%), idiopathic (32%), uremic (20%), postmyocardial infarction (8%), and acute rheumatic fever (4%). Of our patients, 44% presented with cardiac tamponade, while 25% of patients with idiopathic pericarditis had hemorrhage effusion and cardiac tamponade. At follow-up, 37 +/- 17 months after pericardial drainage, 68% had died from complications of their underlying disease. There were no deaths attributed to pericardial disease. While 88% of patients with idiopathic large pericardial effusion were alive at follow-up, none of the neoplastic large pericardial effusion patients survived longer than 5 months after initial pericardial drainage (p less than 0.001). Additionally, the survival of patients with uremic large pericardial effusion was better than patients with neoplastic large pericardial effusion (p less than 0.05). We conclude: (1) neoplastic, idiopathic, and uremic pericarditis are the most common causes of large pericardial effusion in men, (2) idiopathic pericarditis can be hemorrhagic and cause cardiac tamponade, and (3) the prognosis of large pericardial effusion is related to patients' underlying disease.