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

Is pulmonary hypertension protective against cardiac tamponade? A systematic review

The presence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) may affect whether cardiac tamponade physiology develops from a pericardial effusion. Specifically, the increased intracardiac pressure and right ventricular hypertrophy associated with PH would seemingly increase the intrapericardial pressure threshold at which the right-sided chambers collapse. In this systematic review, we examined the impact of PH on the incidence, in-hospital and long-term mortality, and echocardiographic findings of patients with cardiac tamponade. Using the PRISMA guideline, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database for studies investigating PH and cardiac tamponade. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to analyze the quality of returned studies. Primary outcomes included the incidence of cardiac tamponade, as well as in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Secondary outcomes were the presence or absence of echocardiographic findings of cardiac tamponade in patients with PH. Forty-three studies (9 cohort studies and 34 case reports) with 1054 patients were included. The incidence of cardiac tamponade was significantly higher in patients with PH compared to those without PH, 2.0% (95% CI 1.2-3.2%) vs. 0.05% (95% CI 0.05-0.05%), p < 0.0001, OR 40.76 (95% CI 24.8-66.9). The incidence of tamponade in patients with a known pericardial effusion was similar in those with and without PH, 20.3% (95% CI 12.0-32.3%) and 20.9% (95% CI 18.0-24.1%), p = 0.9267, OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.50-1.87). In patients with tamponade, those with PH demonstrated a significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those without PH, 38.8% (95% CI 26.4-52.8%) vs. 14.4% (95% CI 14.2-14.6%), p < 0.0001, OR 3.77 (95% CI 2.12-6.70). Long-term mortality in patients with tamponade was significantly lower in those with PH than in those without PH, 45.5% (95% CI 33.0-58.5%) vs. 59.1% (95% CI 54.7-63.4%), p = 0.0258, OR 0.576 (95% CI 0.33-1.01). However, after stratifying by non-malignant etiologies, the long-term mortality benefit for those with PH disappeared. In the studies that described specific echocardiographic findings of cardiac tamponade, only 10.5% of patients with PH and tamponade showed right atrial and right ventricular collapse. When evaluating patients with pericardial effusions, physicians must recognize the effects of underlying PH on the incidence, in-hospital and long-term mortality rates, and potentially atypical echocardiographic presentation of cardiac tamponade.

Variability in Interpretation of Echocardiographic Signs of Tamponade: A Survey of Emergency Physician Sonographers

BACKGROUND

Cardiac tamponade is associated with high mortality, and making the diagnosis is a core skill of emergency physicians. Proper diagnosis relies on specific clinical and echocardiographic findings. It is not known whether expert sonographers consistently recognize echocardiographic signs of tamponade.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether expert sonographers agree on echocardiographic signs of tamponade.

METHODS

A 20-question survey consisting of 18 cine loops and 2 still images was distributed to the Academy of Emergency Ultrasound Section of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Respondents answered "yes" or "no" to whether there was echocardiographic evidence of tamponade. Subgroup analyses of demographics and echocardiographic views were reported. The data were analyzed using Krippendorff's alpha (α) to assess interrater reliability (IRR) between respondents.

RESULTS

Eighty-four physicians responded and 56 completed the survey. All partial and completed surveys were analyzed. The overall IRR was poor (α = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.76). Residency graduation within 5 years (α = 0.66, 95% CI 0.5-0.8) was associated with higher IRR compared with those > 5 years (α = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.69). The highest IRR was observed when images of mitral valve inflow pulse-wave Doppler (α = 0.81, CI 0.70-0.92) were used and the poorest IRR was on images from the parasternal short view (α = 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-0.49).

CONCLUSION

There was poor agreement among expert emergency medicine sonographers in identifying echocardiographic signs of cardiac tamponade from a single cine loop or clip without clinical context. Further investigation is warranted to understand differences in recognition of clinical tamponade.

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.

Standardized Criteria for Identification of Cardiac Tamponade on Non-Electrocardiogram-gated Computed Tomography: Correlation With Echocardiographic Findings

PURPOSE

To identify imaging parameters that can help in the diagnosis of cardiac tamponade on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT) of the chest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 64 patients who had undergone CT and echocardiography for evaluation of cardiac tamponade. Of 64 patients, 34 were diagnosed with tamponade and underwent pericardiocentesis for further diagnosis and treatment. CT measurements obtained were: pericardial effusion (PeEff) pocket size in 6 locations (anterior, posterior, superior, inferior, right, and left lateral), pericardial thickening, diameters of the coronary sinus, upper superior vena cava, lower superior vena cava, and inferior vena cava. In addition, cardiac chamber sizes were measured. Subjective assessment of coronary sinus compression, pericardial enhancement, and pericardial thickening were also recorded.

RESULTS

Measurement of the sum of the right lateral and left lateral PeEff thickness resulted in 91.2% sensitivity and 86.7% specificity for cardiac tamponade with a threshold of 30 mm (receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve=0.94 [0.84 to 0.98], P <0.0001). Using the combination of inferior PeEff >16 mm, sum of right lateral and left lateral PeEff>30 mm, and presence of pericardial thickening resulted in 56% sensitivity and 100% specificity and positive predictive value for the determination of cardiac tamponade.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that CT measurements related to PeEff size and thickness aid in the diagnosis of cardiac tamponade.

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.

Anagrelide-induced pericardial effusion in a patient with essential thrombocythemia

Pericardial effusion leading to cardiac tamponade can occur due to a multitude of etiologies, one of which is medication adverse effects. In patients with comorbid conditions, this can prove to be a challenge in its co-management along with the primary disease. We present a rare case of anagrelide-induced pericardial effusion that is presented with tamponade physiology in a patient with essential thrombocythemia. After cautiously weighing the risks and benefits of further invasive interventions following an unsuccessful pericardiocentesis, the decision was to stop anagrelide while managing the pericardial effusion medically. Therefore, managing pericardial effusion should be tailored to each patient individually through shared decision-making.

Pericardial Effusion during Proton Therapy in a Patient with Chemorefractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

We present a case of recurrent pericardial effusion presenting during proton therapy in a 24-year-old female receiving mediastinal treatment for classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Pericardial effusion is typically considered an event accompanying lymphoma diagnosis or as a subacute or late effect of radiotherapy. Rarely has it been described as occurring during radiation treatment with photon-based radiotherapy, let alone proton therapy. It is unclear what underlying cause triggered recurrent effusion in this patient. Identifying and managing pericardial effusion during treatment delivery is important to consider as it may affect radiation dosimetry, particularly with proton therapy. Doing so will help ensure patients receive optimal treatment and minimize the risks of morbidity and mortality.