Tumormarker im Perikarderguss bei malignen und nichtmalignen Perikardergüssen

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.

Development and validation a simple scoring system to identify malignant pericardial effusion

Background

Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) is a serious complication in patients with advanced malignant tumors, which indicates a poor prognosis. However, its clinical manifestations lack specificity, making it challenging to distinguish MPE from benign pericardial effusion (BPE). The aim of this study was to develop and validate a scoring system based on a nomogram to discriminate MPE from BPE through easy-to-obtain clinical parameters.

Methods

In this study, the patients with pericardial effusion who underwent diagnostic pericardiocentesis in Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province from February 2013 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The eligible patients were divided into a training group (n = 161) and a validation group (n = 66) according to the admission time. The nomogram model was established using the meaningful indicators screened by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression. Then, a new scoring system was constructed based on this nomogram model.

Results

The new scoring system included loss of weight (3 points), no fever (4 points), mediastinal lymph node enlargement (2 points), pleural effusion (6 points), effusion adenosine deaminase (ADA≦18U/L) (5 points), effusion lactate dehydrogenase (LDH>1033U/L) (7 points), and effusion carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA>4.9g/mL) (10 points). With the optimal cut-off value was 16 points, the area under the curve (AUC), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) for identifying MPE were 0.974, 95.1%, 91.0%, 85.6%, 96.8%, 10.56 and 0.05, respectively, in the training set and 0.950, 83.3%, 95.2%, 90.9%, 90.9%, 17.50, and 0.18, respectively, in the validation set. The scoring system also showed good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating MPE caused by lung cancer from tuberculous pericardial effusion (TPE) and MPE including atypical cell from BPE.

Conclusion

The new scoring system based on seven easily available variables has good diagnostic value in distinguishing MPE from BPE.

Update on diagnosis and management of neoplastic pericardial disease

INTRODUCTION

Pericardial neoplasms are uncommon, mostly due to secondary involvement of the pericardium by extracardiac tumors. Clinical presentation is nonspecific, frequently leading to a delayed diagnosis. Moreover, both benign and malignant pericardial tumors may be associated with myocardial infiltration and mechanical compression of cardiac chambers, possibly precipitating clinical conditions. Pericardial tumors are indeed a diagnostic and therapeutic clinical challenge.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of the main clinical characteristics of pericardial tumors, along with their management in clinical practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Multimodality imaging (echocardiography, chest X-ray, CT, CMR, and PET) enable full characterization of pericardial neoplasms. An individualized strategy should be developed by a multidisciplinary team including cardiologists, oncologists, radiologists, and cardiac surgeons.