Subxiphoid pericardial window for pericardial effusive disease

A subxiphoid pericardial window made in 123 patients allowed drainage and diagnosis of pericardial effusions. In 40 patients with malignancy and effusions, median drainage was 450 ml; cytology was positive in 17 or 36 (47%), and pericardial biopsy showed cancer in 13 (43%) of 30 patients. In 11 patients with malignancy, both cytology of effusions and biopsy of the pericardium were negative. In 83 patients with benign effusions, median drainage was 400 ml. Effusions recurred in 14 of the 123 patients (11%); nine patients in the benign group and five in the malignant group. Five of these 14 underwent thoracotomy (3 to 542 days postoperatively); two underwent median sternotomy and one underwent pericardiocentesis. Two intraoperative deaths resulted from cardiac arrest. Mortality at 30 days was 25% (10/40 patients) in the malignant group and 11% (9/83 patients) in the benign group. No deaths resulted from recurrent effusions. The establishment of a subxiphoid pericardial window allows rapid and safe drainage of pericardial effusions with sampling for cytology and pericardial biopsy. It has minimal morbidity and few recurrent effusions.     

Eleven years' experience with pericardial-peritoneal window in the management of malignant and benign pericardial effusions

Background: Before 1983 we routinely used subxiphoid drainage for the management of pericardial effusions. Pericardial-pleural window through a left anterior thoracotomy was used in selected patients. Due to frustration over the rate of recurrent pericardial effusions with subxiphoid drainage alone and concern over the higher morbidity with thoracotomy, the creation of a 3-cm pericardial-peritoneal window in the fused portion of the pericardium and diaphragm overlying the left lobe of the liver was added to subxiphoid drainage in 1983. Methods: This study is a retrospective chart review of the 33 patients undergoing pericardial-peritoneal window from 1983 through 1993. Eighteen patients had malignancies, mainly lung and breast, and 15 had benign pericardial effusions. Results: The procedure was well tolerated, with a 30-day mortality of 9%; however, no deaths were directly related to the pericardial effusion or the procedure. No patient developed peritoneal carcinomatosis or diaphragmatic hernia. One patient developed recurrent pericardial effusion during follow-up, and two required pericardiectomy for constrictive disease. Among those with malignancies, patients with breast cancer had the longest survival after pericardial-peritoneal window. Conclusions: Pericardial-peritoneal window is a simple, safe, and effective procedure and applicable to most patients with malignant and noninfectious benign pericardial effusion, including those with tamponade. Presented at the 47th Annual Cancer Symposium of The Society of Surgical Oncology, Houston, Texas, March 17–20, 1994.     

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

BACKGROUND: The optimal therapy for symptomatic pericardial effusions remains controversial. This paper compares outcomes after the two most commonly used techniques, percutaneous catheter drainage and operative subxiphoid pericardial drainage. METHODS: We performed a 5-year retrospective, single-institution study to analyze outcomes after either percutaneous catheter drainage or subxiphoid open pericardial drainage for symptomatic pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Symptomatic pericardial effusions in 246 patients were treated by open pericardiotomy and tube drainage (n = 150) or percutaneous catheter drainage (n = 96). Drainage duration, total drainage volume, and duration of follow-up (2.6 years) were similar in both groups. Effusions were classified malignant in 79 (32%) patients and benign in 167 (68%) patients. No direct procedural mortality occurred, but the hospital mortality was 16 patients (10.7%) in the open group and 22 (22.9%) in the percutaneous group (p = 0.01) The 5-year survival rate was 51% in the open group versus 45% in the percutaneous group, despite a greater percentage of the open group having a preoperative malignant diagnosis (35% versus 28%). Symptomatic effusions recurred in 16.5% of the percutaneous group compared with 4.6% in the open group (p = 0.002), and sclerosis did not appear to reduce recurrence rates (10.7% with sclerosis versus 15.6% without; p > 0.05). The diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 16 of 27 (59%) percutaneous procedures performed on patients with known malignancy. In the open group, cytologic and pathologic evaluation of the pericardial specimen revealed malignancy in 32 of 52 (62%) patients with known malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Subxiphoid and percutaneous pericardial drainage of symptomatic pericardial effusions can be performed safely; however, death occurs from underlying disease. Open subxiphoid pericardial drainage with pericardial biopsy appears to decrease recurrence but does not improve diagnostic accuracy of malignancy over cytology alone.     

Pericardoscopy for primary management of pericardial effusion in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of pericardoscopy via the subxyphoid route for the diagnosis and treatment of pericardial effusion in patients with a history of cancer. METHODS: All patients with a recent or remote history of cancer and a pericardial effusion of unknown origin requiring drainage for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes were included in the study. They underwent complete exploration and cleansing of the pericardial cavity. Abnormal structures or deposits were biopsied under direct visual control, with a 24 cm long rigid pericardoscope. RESULTS: Between 1985 and 1998, pericardoscopy was completed in 112 of the 114 patients included (feasibility 98%), resulting in the immediate relief of symptoms in all the cases. Peri-operative mortality was 3.5%, and post-operative morbidity, 6.1%. After pericardioscopy pericardial effusions were considered malignant in 43 cases. One more case (2.3%) due to a false negative result of pericardioscopy was diagnosed during follow-up. Overall, 44 of the 114 patients (38.6%) had a malignant effusion, and 70 (61.4%), a non-malignant effusion according the follow up. In 10 of the 44 patients with a malignant pericardial effusion (22.7%), pericardoscopy corrected the results of cytological pericardial fluid studies and pericardial window biopsy, both false negatives. The sensitivities of cytological studies of the pericardial fluid, pathological examinations of pericardial window biopsy and pericardioscopy were 75, 65 and 97%, respectively. One patient with a malignant effusion had a non-symptomatic recurrence 1 month after pericardioscopy (2.3%). CONCLUSION: We recommend pericardioscopy to ascertain the malignant nature of the effusion and to diminish the recurrence rate, this avoiding repeat procedures in patients with a short life expectancy.     

Surgical treatment of large pericardial effusions. Etiology and long-term survival

From 1977 to 1988 60 patients were treated for large pericardial effusion. The operation consisted of a small left anterior thoracotomy with formation of a pericardial window. In 28 patients (47%) the etiology was a malignant disease. Eight patients (29%) had malignant cells in the pericardial fluid and 23 patients (82%) had metastases to the pericardium. Seven patients (12%) had purulent pericarditis; in 4 cases Staphylococcus was found. Of the remaining 25 patients, the etiology remained unknown in 13. The 5-year survival rate was 60% among patients with nonmalignant effusions. In patients with malignant effusions only 20% were alive after 2 years. There were no deaths related to the operation. We conclude that large pericardial effusions of unknown etiology can be safely treated with a small left anterior thoracotomy. This access gives optimal possibilities for rapid diagnosis and treatment.     

Pericardial drainage: subxiphoid vs. transthoracic approach

The optimal management of effusive pericardial disease remains controversial. Subxiphoid drainage has been criticized for a high recurrence rate while transthoracic procedures (window or pericardiectomy) are more invasive operations with greater potential for morbidity. We compared subxiphoid (SX group) and transthoracic (TT group) drainage in 131 patients (age range from 1 month to 81 years) treated from 1979 to the present. The etiology of effusion included cancer (38), uremia (24), infection (27), radiation (9), and other (33) causes. The two groups had similar age and sex distribution, etiology, and fluid volume. There was no difference in the operative mortality between the two groups (SX 15%, TT 13%, p = NS). Patients undergoing thoracotomy for treatment of effusive pericardial disease had a higher incidence of respiratory complications as defined by the presence of pneumonia, pleural effusion, prolonged ventilation, and need for reintubation (SX 11%, TT 35%, p less than 0.005). This may account, in part, for the longer mean hospital stay in transthoracic group (14.4 vs. 11.4 days). Nine patients were lost to follow-up after hospital discharge. The remaining 104 hospital survivors were followed for between 1 month and 11 years (mean 34 months, cumulative of 297 patient years). Three patients in each group experienced fluid recurrence and all but one were successfully treated by needle aspiration or percutaneous catheter placement. Following discharge, no patient required reoperation for effusive or constrictive pericardial disease or died from tamponade. There were no significant differences in 5-year actuarial survival (SX 54%, TT 49%) or actuarial freedom from recurrence (SX 89%, TT 93%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Clinical experience with subxiphoid drainage of pericardial effusions

To assess the effectiveness of subxiphoid pericardial tube drainage for treatment of pericardial effusion, we reviewed 41 consecutive patients who underwent this procedure during a 14-year period. The patients ranged in age from 7 months to 75 years. All were symptomatic preoperatively. The diagnosis of pericardial effusion was confirmed by echocardiogram in all but 2 patients. Eight patients had acute pericardial tamponade. Subxiphoid pericardial drainage was performed under general (n = 35) or local anesthesia (n = 6). A portion of the anterior pericardium was excised in each patient. There were no perioperative deaths. Thirty-day mortality was 19.5%; there were five late deaths. All deaths were unrelated to pericardial effusion or to the operation. One patient had recurrent effusion requiring pericardiocentesis on the 21st postoperative day. He died five days later of extensive lymphoma. Twenty-eight patients were followed from 1 month to 10 years; mean follow-up was 31.5 months. None developed recurrent effusion or pericardial constriction. We conclude that subxiphoid pericardial drainage is effective for treatment of pericardial effusion.     

心脏外科术后心包积液的危险因素与治疗

目的 探讨心脏外科手术后心包积液的危险因素和治疗方法.方法 回顾分析22 462例患者临床资料,定义心包积液诊断标准.观察心包积液患者与无积液患者的临床表现,对症治疗,分析危险因素.结果 509例(2.3％)患者有心包积液262例有临床特殊症状,其中51例有心包压塞的临床表现.有、无心包积液的患者年龄、性别、冠心病史等因素差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);而大体重、瓣膜病、主动脉阻断和体外循环时间差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 心包积液的危险因素有大体重,术前心功能Ⅲ、Ⅳ级,瓣膜病,先天性心脏病,大血管疾病,体外循环和主动脉阻断时间延长.超声引导下的心包积液穿刺引流是安全有效的.     

Malignant pericardial effusion--an uncommon complication of multiple myeloma: case report

Multiple myeloma is a condition usually associated with lesions of the skeleton. However, under rare circumstances, the malignant plasma cells may infiltrate the pericardium, resulting in an effusion. If left untreated, the abnormal accumulation of pericardial fluid will result in cardiac tamponade, requiring drainage. The following report describes a multiple myeloma patient who developed secondary pericardial and pleural effusions, which were surgically drained via a pleuropericardial window.     

Clinical experience with subxyphoid pericardial decompression

Between 1971 and 1981, 108 patients with pericardial effusion were treated by subxyphoid pericardial decompression. 68 patients (63%) had local anesthesia, while general anesthesia was used in 40 (37%). The total group included nonspecific (viral) pericarditis in 35 patients (32.4%), uremic pericarditis in 30 (27.8%); and 20 patients (18.5%) with a malignant etiology, traumatic in ten patients (9.3%), six patients (5.6%) following radiation for malignant disease, and seven patients (6.5%) due to other causes. Echocardiography was diagnostic in all cases. Acute cardiac tamponade necessitated pericardiocentesis as an initial procedure in seven patients (6.5%). Subxyphoid pericardial decompression included drainage of the pericardial fluid and performance of a 5 X 5 cm pericardial window and biopsy of all patients. There were two (1.8%) operative deaths in the general anesthesia group but none in the local anesthesia group. There were no major complication in the local anesthesia group, but one patient in the general anesthesia group, who was severely hypertensive preoperatively, developed hemiplegia on the left side. There were five recurrences (4.6%) requiring total pericardiectomy at a later date. Subxyphoid pericardial decompression under local anesthesia was seen to be a safe and effective procedure for primary decompression and diagnosis of acute or chronic pericardial effusion.     

Ultrasound guided pericardial drainage and intrapericardial instillation of mitomycin C for malignant pericardial effusion.

BACKGROUND--Conservative treatment of malignant pericardial effusion by intrapericardial instillation of a sclerosing agent may be an alternative to surgery. METHODS--Twenty patients with malignant pericardial effusion were treated by ultrasound guided pericardiocentesis and the intrapericardial instillation of mitomycin C. RESULTS--Mitomycin C was effective in controlling the pericardial effusion in 70% of patients without causing side effects, except for pericardial constriction seven months later in one subject. CONCLUSIONS--Ultrasound guided intrapericardial instillation of mitomycin C is a suitable alternative in the management of malignant pericardial effusion.     

Which treatment in pericardial effusion?

BACKGROUND: Pericardiocentesis, pleuro-pericardial window, subxiphoid pericardial drainage and pericardioscopy: which methodology to treat pericardial effusion? Each of these surgical treatments can be effective, depending on clinical factors and history of the patients. We considered pericardial effusions during 5 years. METHODS: We reviewed 64 cases: 14 acute pericardial effusions (5 patients with cardiac tamponade), 39 subacute, 11 chronic. Epidemiology and aetiology: 8 cases were between 20 and 25 years old (all affected by lymphoma), 56 were distributed in every age, especially over 60, and of these 45 were neoplastic and 11 non- neoplastic. Non-neoplastic cases were connectivitis (3 patients), uncertain origin effusion (7 patients), tubercular (1 patient). In neoplastic effusions we found lymphoma (at older age) in 7, small cell lung cancer in 6, NSCLC in 12, mesothelioma in 2, breast cancer in 7. RESULTS: Acute pericardial effusions with cardiac tamponade underwent echo-guided pericardiocentesis. In 43 we had a subxiphoid pericardial drainage, among these cases we performed 4 pericardioscopies. We created a pleuro-pericardial window on VATS in 13, on thoracotomy in 4 for technical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardiocentesis is to be preferred in acute pericardial effusion with cardiac tamponade to avoid general anaesthesia. Pleuro-pericardial window on VATS is better in chronic pericardial effusion (for infective or systemic disease) and in recurrence, after performing subxiphoid drainage. Subxiphoid drainage is suitable for all neoplastic patients, and in case of unknown aetiology in order to perform a pericardioscopy.     

The incidence and significance of early pericardial effusion after open heart surgery

The presence and severity of postoperative pericardial effusions were studied echocardiographically in 114 consecutive patients (70 males, 44 females; mean age 56 +/- 10 years). An effusion was present in 35 patients at 3-5 days. An effusion was less common when a drainage tube was inserted for 24-36 h in the posterior as well as the anterior mediastinum than when only an anterior drain was used. Patients with effusions differed from those without in having more supraventricular arrhythmias, more wound infections, smaller total blood drainage and longer postoperative hospital stay. Three patients with posterior pericardial effusions developed cardiac tamponade 5-18 days postoperatively. The data show that pericardial effusions are associated with postoperative complications and suggest that effusion formation can be reduced by using posterior as well as anterior chest drains.     

Subxiphoid approach to the pericardium

Pericardiotomy was performed via the subxiphoid route in 19 patients, 7 with benign and 12 with malignant disorders. Partial pericardial resection ('fenestration') was undertaken in nine of the patients with malignant disease, and pericardial tube drainage or insertion of pacemaker electrode in the other ten patients. There were no intraoperative deaths. The 16% hospital mortality was attributable to the underlying disease. Subxiphoid pericardial decompression is a simple, safe and effective procedure in the management of pericardial effusion. Particularly in malignant conditions it can give excellent palliation.     

Asymptomatic pericardial effusion in uremic patients: effect of long-term dialysis

The present study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of asymptomatic pericardial effusion in a population with end-stage renal failure just prior to the initiation of chronic dialysis, and to determine the effect of long-term dialysis on these effusions. We prospectively studied 50 uremic patients with M-mode echocardiograms prior to initiation of chronic dialysis and followed 33 of these patients after 10 months of intense dialytic therapy. Predialysis effusion was present in 18/50 (36%) patients. Only 3/50 patients had clinical evidence of pericarditis (none of these individuals had an effusion). The incidence of clinical congestion and radiological evidence of volume overload was significantly higher in the patients with an asymptomatic pericardial effusion. Of these, the effusion disappeared on improved in 6 (43%), remained unchanged in 6 (43%), and worsened in 2 (14%). No patients developed new pericardise effusions during chronic dialysis. Changes in effusion size were related to changes in body weight between dialysis treatments (r = 0.39; p less than 0.05). Our data show that asymptomatic pericardial effusions are frequent in uremic patients prior to initiation of dialysis, the etiology of asymptomatic pericardial effusions in these patients appears to be related to volume overload, only 43% of the patients improved their effusions with chronic dialysis.     

Delayed pericardial effusion following stab wounds to the chest.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed pericardial effusion following penetrating cardiac trauma has not been commonly reported, and the exact incidence remains unknown. It was more common before 1960, when pericardiocentesis was still a popular treatment for stable patients presenting with a stab wound to the heart. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During an 8-year period, 24 patients were diagnosed with delayed pericardial effusions following a recent stab wound over the chest. Nine patients had been initially treated at our trauma unit, and the remaining 15 patients were referred by a peripheral clinic. RESULTS: Diagnosis was confirmed by cardiac ultrasound or echocardiogram. Sixteen patients were adequately treated by subxiphoid drainage. Sternotomy was performed in five patients, left thoracotomy in two and right thoracotomy in one patient. No actively bleeding injuries were found. Three patients had active infection in the pericardial space. Fever, pleural effusions and ascites were common associated findings. Additional procedures performed included laparotomy for acute abdominal pain in two patients (both negative), and simultaneous drainage of a pleural empyema. Two patients with staphylococcal pericardial infections required subsequent pericardiectomy. SUMMARY: The diagnosis of a penetrating cardiac patient may be missed in a stable patient, and patients may present with delayed pericardial effusions and tamponade. Post pericardiotomy syndrome may be the most common cause of delayed pericardial effusion, followed by sepsis. Subxiphoid pericardial window is an adequate form of treatment. Recent literature reveals that occult cardiac injury is not uncommon, thus a case should be made to actively investigate all patients with precordial stab wounds with cardiac ultrasound or echocardiogram.     

Thoracoscopic pericardial resections for malignant pericardial effusions

We have performed 5 thoracoscopic pericardial resections for malignant pericardial effusions. An initial trocar was placed in the seventh or eighth intercostal space posterior to the midaxillary line. Two additional trocars were placed, usually in the sixth intercostals spaces in the anterior axillary and posterior axillary lines. Using an endoscopic grasping instrument and scissors through the working ports, a pericardial resection was performed. All patients were successfully managed by thoracoscopic pericardial resections. Two of the 5 patients had associated malignant pleural effusions that were able to be managed at the same time by thoracoscopy. The average chest tube duration was 1.8 days. There has been no reaccumulation of pericardial effusions in all patients at an average follow-up of 5 months. The thoracoscopic approach could be minimally invasive and the procedure of choice in performing pericardial resections in selected patients with malignant pericardial effusions who are expected to have a reasonable life expectancy.     

Pericardial catheter sclerosis versus surgical procedures for pericardial effusions in cancer patients

BACKGROUND: Approximately 21% of patients with advanced malignancies have cardiac or pericardial involvement with tumor. Controversy exists regarding the optimal approach to the pericardial space when hemodynamic compromise due to effusions occurs. METHODS: A six-year retrospective review of 59 cancer patients with pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had subxiphoid pericardial window (SXPW) alone (Group A), 5 had pericardial catheter drainage (PCD) followed by a SXPW (Group B), 10 had PCD with sclerosis (Group C), 5 had PCD alone (Group D), 2 had PCD with pericardial-pleural window (Group E), and one had pericardial-peritoneal window (Group F). The method of procedure, complications, number of hospital and ICU days, cytological or pathologic evidence of malignancy, solid versus hematological tumors, and survival were analyzed. The median survival for those patients in group C was one month compared to 4 months for Group A and 6 months for Group B. Essentially, results were similar regardless of method performed with the exception that professional and hospital charges averaged $4830 for SXPW compared to $1625 for PCD. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial catheter drainage and sclerosis provides a viable option for the treatment of pericardial effusions in selected cancer patients at markedly reduced cost and patient discomfort.     

Posterior pericardiotomy reduces the incidence of supra-ventricular arrhythmias and pericardial effusion after coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of posterior pericardiotomy in reducing the incidence pericardial effusions and consequently reducing the related supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and development of delayed posterior cardiac effusions. METHODS: This prospective randomized study was carried out in 150 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in Bayindir Hospital Department of Cardiovascular Surgery between April 2000 and October 2001. One hundred and fifty patients were divided into two groups; each group included 75 patients. A 4-cm longitudinal incision was made parallel and posterior to the left phrenic nerve, extending from the left inferior pulmonary vein to the diaphragm in posterior pericardiotomy group (group I). Posterior pericardiotomy was not performed in conventional treatment group (group II). RESULTS: Atrial fibrillation was developed in seven patients (9.3%) in group I and in 24 patients (32%) in group II (P<0.001). Atrial flutter and other supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT) prevalence was not statistically significant. Early pericardial effusion was developed 42.6% (32/75) and 10.6% (8/75), respectively, in group II and group I (P<0.0001), but no late pericardial effusion developed in group I despite seven (9.3%) late pericardial effusions developing in group II (P<0.013). CONCLUSION: Posterior pericardiotomy is a simple, safe and effective technique for reducing not only the prevalence of early pericardial effusion and related atrial fibrillation but also delayed posterior pericardial effusion and tamponade.     

Thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration for persistent pericardial effusion after radiotherapy for esophageal cancer; report of a case

We performed thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration for persistent pericardial effusion after radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. An 85-year-old man who had radiation therapy (70.2 Gy) for esophageal cancer was admitted for shortness of breath. Chest computed tomography showed a pericardial effusion. During the 6 months prior to this admission, the patient had undergone percutaneous pericardial drainage 3 times for cardiac tamponade. We performed thoracoscopic partial pericardiectomy with creation of a pleuropericardial window via one access port. Histopathologically, no malignant cells were found in either the resected pericardium or the pericardial effusion. Therefore, we believe the persistent pericardial effusion was secondary to radiotherapy. There was no recurrence of the pericardial effusion for 7 months postoperatively. In summary, thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration is useful in both the diagnosis and treatment of persistent pericardial effusion.