Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity

Pericardial effusion cytology: malignancy rates, patterns of metastasis, comparison with pericardial window, and genomic correlates

INTRODUCTION

Cytologic evaluation of pericardial fluid is essential for diagnosing malignant pericardial effusions secondary to metastatic disease and for guiding appropriate clinical management; however, large cohort and up-to-date studies on malignancy rates and distribution of primary tumor sites is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of pericardial fluid specimens from 2 large academic medical centers over a 10-year period was conducted. Clinical and specimen characteristics were correlated with cytologic diagnoses, and compared with surgical pathology pericardial specimens when available. In addition, genomic testing results were examined in a subset of malignant cases.

RESULTS

A total of 1667 pericardial fluid specimens were evaluated, with 15.3% diagnosed as malignant. Lung cancer (50.6%) was by far the most common primary tumor causing malignant pericardial effusions, followed by breast (13.0%), hematolymphoid (12.6%), and gastrointestinal (6.1%) cancers. A subset of patients with paired cytology and surgical pathology pericardial specimens showed concordance in 84.2% of cases, with discordant cases more frequently presenting with a positive cytology but negative surgical pathology result. Genomic analysis of a subset of malignant pericardial effusions revealed the most frequently mutated genes to be TP53, KRAS, CDKN2A/B, and PIK3CA, with a larger proportion of high tumor mutational burden (≥10 muts/Mb) in pericardial fluid samples compared to primary or metastatic sites.

CONCLUSIONS

While lung cancer is the most frequent cause of a cytology-confirmed malignant pericardial effusion, familiarity with relative frequencies of metastases from other sites can be particularly helpful, especially in the diagnostic work-up of an occult malignant pericardial effusion.

Pericardial fluid evaluation: Diagnostic yield and cytology-histology correlation

BACKGROUND

Pericardial effusion can be due to any etiology but may cause significant morbidity and mortality; however, malignant effusions are rare, and accurate and timely diagnosis is essential for appropriate further management. Data on the actual comparison of pericardial cytology and surgical specimens are limited, and this study was conducted to evaluate an institutional cohort and compare these two samples.

METHODS

The institutional electronic database system was retrospectively searched between January 2019 and December 2023 for pericardial biopsies/surgical specimens (PSSs) and cytology.

RESULTS

A total of 202 surgical specimens of the pericardium were identified from patients with a median age of 67 years and a range of 18-97 years. Of these 202 cases, 190 specimens also underwent cytological evaluation, which included 153 cases that were negative for malignancy, nine cases that were indeterminate/atypical, and 28 cases that were positive for malignancy. Agreement between cytology and PSSs was reached in 172 cases, with 153 being benign and 19 being malignant. However, a cytology-histology discrepancy was found in 18 cases. Of these 18 cases, nine showed positive cytology but all had negative concurrent PSSs except for one with focal atypia, and the remaining nine were indeterminate/atypical on cytology. Eight of these nine indeterminate cases were negative on the PSS, whereas one atypical cytology case with low cellularity showed a positive PSS.

CONCLUSIONS

If atypical cases are excluded, cytology demonstrates a better diagnostic yield for detecting malignancy compared to surgical specimens (n = 28 cases vs. n = 20 cases, respectively).

Pericardial Windows: The Limited Diagnostic Value of Non-Targeted Pericardial Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Pericardial window, in addition to promoting pericardial drainage, can also provide samples of the pericardium for anatomopathological examination. However, such biopsies' contribution to clarifying the etiology of pericardial effusion has been debated.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the diagnostic value of non-targeted pericardial biopsy obtained from pericardial window procedures.

METHODS

Data from 80 patients who had undergone parietal pericardial biopsies from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical significance was considered if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were male (62.5%,) and 30 were female (37.5%). The median age was 52 years (interquartile range: 29 to 59) and 49 years (interquartile range: 38 to 65), respectively (p = 0.724). The suspected etiology of pericardial effusion was neoplastic in 31.3%, unclear in 25%, tuberculosis in 15%, autoimmune in 12.5%, edemagenic syndrome in 7.5%, and other miscellaneous conditions in 8.8%. The most frequent approach for pericardial drainage and biopsy was subxiphoid (74%), followed by video-assisted thoracoscopy (22%). Overall, in 78.8% of the biopsies, the histopathologic findings were compatible with nonspecific inflammation, and only 13.7% of all biopsies yielded a conclusive histopathological diagnostic. Those suffering from cancer and pericardial effusion had a higher proportion of conclusive histopathologic findings (32% had pericardial neoplastic infiltration). The hospital mortality rate was 27.5%, and 54.5% of the patients who died in the hospital had cancer. No deaths were attributed to cardiac tamponade or the drainage procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that pericardial window is a safe procedure, but it had little value to clarify the pericardial effusion etiology and no impact on the planned therapy for the primary diagnosis besides the cardiac decompression.

Incidental finding of asymptomatic non-traumatic pericardial effusion in a trauma patient: a case report

Pericardial effusion can either be an incidental finding or a manifestation of systemic or cardiac disease. It has a wide range of presentations, from asymptomatic small effusion to rapidly progressive fatal tamponade. In a trauma setting, pericardial effusion is usually attributed to hematoma collection, with the concern of clinical evidence of tamponade that can lead to cardiopulmonary collapse. The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) is a widely used tool to diagnose pericardial effusion in trauma patients. We published this case report to emphasize that the presence of pericardial effusion alone in a trauma patient does not indicate the presence of tamponade. This case concerns a 39 years old male patient who presented to ER as a trauma case after a fall from two meters height and landing on his feet. ATLS protocol was followed, and FAST showed an incidental finding of massive pericardial fluid. The trauma team was consulted, and the patient was hemodynamically stable without clinical evidence of tamponade. Echocardiography showed mitral valve stenosis and large pericardial effusion. The close observation did not suggest the presence of cardiac tamponade. The pericardial catheter was inserted during admission with drainage of 900cc of serous fluid. The presence of pericardial fluid in a trauma setting does not confirm the diagnosis of tamponade. The mechanism of injury, clinical presentation, and the patient's stability are essential factors in determining further management of such patients.

Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity

Purpose

Cardiothoracic surgeons are frequently called upon to perform surgical pericardial drainage procedures (pericardial window) for pericardial effusions. These procedures have therapeutic value, but the diagnostic value of such procedures is debated. We set out to determine the sensitivity of pericardial drainage to detect the disease when cytology, microbiology, and pathology are evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent pericardial windows from 1 July 2011 to 1 January 2018 at a single academic institution was conducted. All patients who had undergone a recent trauma or cardiac procedure were excluded. Cytology, microbiology, and pathology were examined. The charts were then carefully reviewed to determine if a clinical diagnosis was reached. Sensitivity was then calculated for all diseases and for those that should have been able to be detected.

Results

One hundred sixty‐two patients who had undergone a pericardial drainage procedure were identified; 49 patients were excluded for recent cardiac procedure or trauma. Of the 113 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 56 patients (49.6%) were female with a mean age of 59.7 ± 15.1 years. A diagnosis based on the pathology, microbiology, or cytology was obtained for 27 patients. The most common pathologies detected were adenocarcinoma (11), bacteremia (9), and small cell lung cancer (3); 56 patients had underlying pathologies that would have been possible to detect with either pathology, microbiology, or cytology. The most common detectable diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (20), bacteremia (12), and lymphoma (7). The most common undetectable diagnoses were idiopathic (17), cardiorenal fluid overload (17), and viral (11). The sensitivity of a pericardial drainage procedure for detecting disease was 0.24 for all cases, and 0.48 when restricted to cases where a detectable disease was present.

Conclusion

Cytology, microbiology, and pathology for pericardial drainage procedures were unable to detect a diagnosis for 76% of all cases and greater than 50% of cases with the theoretically detectable disease. Pericardial drainage procedures have a clear therapeutic value, but they have limited diagnostic utility.