Pericardiocentesis adverse event risk factors: a nationwide population-based cohort study

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.

Unveiling the causes of pericardial effusion in a contemporary case series of pericardiocentesis in Latin America

Pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis have multiple causes that vary among geographical regions and health contexts. This procedure can be performed for diagnostic or therapeutic indications. The purpose of this study was to identify the principal causes of pericardial effusions and indications for pericardiocentesis, exploring differences among groups. This was a retrospective case series of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion in a single center in Latin America. Demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural variables were recorded and analyzed. The primary outcome was to determine the causes of pericardial effusions in these patients and the indication (diagnostic, therapeutic, or both). The results are presented in two groups (inflammatory and noninflammatory) according to the cause of the pericardial effusion. One hundred sixteen patients with pericardial effusion underwent pericardiocentesis. The median age was 58 years (IQR 46.2–70.7), and 50% were male. In the noninflammatory pericardial effusion group, there were 61 cases (53%), among which neoplastic pericardial effusion was the most frequent cause (n = 25, 40.9%). In the inflammatory group, there were 55 cases (47%), and the main cause was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery (n = 31, 56.4%). The principal indication for pericardiocentesis was therapeutic (n = 66, 56.8%). Large pericardial effusion without hemodynamic effect of cardiac tamponade was significantly more frequent in the inflammatory group (p = 0.03). In conclusion, the principal cause of pericardial effusion in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery, followed by neoplastic pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis is mainly a therapeutic procedure.

The safety of pericardiocentesis in patients under antithrombotic therapy: A single-center experience

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis and to evaluate the safety of pericardiocentesis without discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in our hospital between 2012 and 2022. Patients were categorized into the Antithrombotic Group if they had used any antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs on the day of pericardiocentesis; otherwise they were categorized into the Non-antithrombotic Group. All procedures were performed by experienced cardiologists with echocardiographic guidance. Bleeding events were defined using the National Institutes of Health scale of adverse events.

Results

A total of 501 consecutive patients were identified and 70 cases were under antithrombotic drugs (Antithrombotic Group). Patients in Antithrombotic Group were older, had more comorbidities, presented with lower platelet counts and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (all p < 0.05). Malignancy was the most common etiology for pericardial effusion in both groups (28.6% in Antithrombotic Group and 54.7% in Non-antithrombotic Group) and tuberculosis was the second etiology in the Non-antithrombotic Group (21.9%), while procedure-related effusion (17.1%) accounted for the second cause in the Antithrombotic Group. Two patients in the Antithrombotic Group had mild oozing at the puncture site that resolved without interventions (2.9 vs. 0%, p = 0.019), and no bleeding events higher than Grade 1 occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Although antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs may put patients undergoing pericardiocentesis at theoretically higher risk of bleeding, our study demonstrated that they are not associated with increased major bleeding complications.

Feasibility and safety of CT-aided pericardiocentesis from a subxiphoid anterior approach by using fluoroscopy in patients with chronic pericardial effusions

Background

Pericardiocentesis is an essential procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pericardial effusions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a subxiphoid anterior approach using fluoroscopy aided by a sagittal axis chest computed tomography (CT) view in comparison with an ultrasound‐guided apical approach in patients with chronic pericardial effusion.

Methods

Among 72 consecutive patients (68.8 ± 14.4 years old, 52 males) with hemodynamically stable chronic pericardial effusions, a total of 85 procedures were retrospectively analyzed. We divided them into two groups according to the site of the approach for the pericardiocentesis.

Results

A subxiphoid anterior approach (n = 53) was performed guided by fluoroscopy. The sagittal axis view of the chest CT was constructed to determine the puncture angle and direction for the subxiphoid anterior approach. An apical approach (n = 32) was performed by ultrasound guidance. The success rates of the anterior and apical approaches were 98.1% and 93.8%, respectively. There were two cases with cardiac perforations in the apical approach group, while no cases developed perforations in the subxiphoid anterior approach group.

Conclusion

The subxiphoid anterior approach for pericardiocentesis was feasible and safe for managing chronic pericardial effusions. A reconstruction of the sagittal axis view of the chest CT imaging was helpful to identify the direction and depth to access the pericardial space from the subxiphoid puncture site before the pericardiocentesis using the lateral fluoroscopic view.

A case of liver injury and pneumo-haemoperitoneum during pericardiocentesis

Pericardiocentesis is a generally safe procedure that provides effective resolution of cardiac tamponade. Emergency pericardiocentesis may be a life-saving intervention. Encountering an intra-abdominal organ in the path of the needle is predicted to be a potential complication in emergency subxiphoid approaches. Despite predictions of intraabdominal injuries, only few instances are recorded. In this case study, a patient recovering from percutaneous cardiac intervention required an emergency pericardiocentesis that was complicated by a liver injury, diaphragmatic penetration and pneumo-haemoperitoneum requiring surgical intervention to remove the drain. The case discusses options for performing the procedure, patient factors that can complicate the procedure and radiological and surgical diagnosis and treatment of this rare event.

Coronary artery perforation secondary to lifesaving pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade: a case report

BACKGROUND

Pericardiocentesis is frequently performed when fluid needs to be removed from the pericardial sac, for both therapeutic and diagnostic purposes, however, it can still be a high-risk procedure in inexperienced hands and/or an emergent setting.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 78-year-old male made an emergency call complaining of the back pain. When the ambulance crew arrived at his home, he was in a state of shock due to cardiac tamponade diagnosed by portable echocardiography. The pericardiocentesis was performed using a puncture needle on site, and the patient was immediately transferred to our hospital by helicopter. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography showed a small protrusion of contrast media on the inferior wall of the left ventricle, suggesting cardiac rupture due to acute myocardial infarction. Emergency coronary angiography was then performed, which confirmed occlusion of the posterior descending branch of the left circumflex coronary artery. In addition, extravasation of contrast medium due to coronary artery perforation was observed in the acute marginal branch of the right coronary artery. We considered that coronary artery perforation had occurred as a complication of the pericardial puncture. We therefore performed transcatheter coil embolization of the perforated branch, and angiography confirmed immediate vessel sealing and hemostasis. After the procedure, the patient made steady progress without a further increase in pericardial effusion, and was discharged on the 50th day after admission.

CONCLUSIONS

When performing pericardial drainage, it is important that the physician recognizes the correct procedure and complications of pericardiocentesis, and endeavors to minimize the occurrence of serious complications. As with the patient presented, coil embolization is an effective treatment for distal coronary artery perforation caused by pericardiocentesis.

What is the ideal approach for emergent pericardiocentesis using point-of-care ultrasound guidance?

BACKGROUND

Traditionally performed using a subxiphoid approach, the increasing use of point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department has made other approaches (parasternal and apical) for pericardiocentesis viable. The aim of this study is to identify the ideal approach for emergency-physician-performed ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis as determined by ultrasound image quality, distance from surface to pericardial fluid, and likely obstructions or complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound examinations was performed in two urban academic emergency departments for the presence of pericardial effusions. The images were reviewed for technical quality, distance of effusion from skin surface, and predicted complications.

RESULTS

A total of 166 pericardial effusions were identified during the study period. The mean skin-to-pericardial fluid distance was 5.6 cm (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.2-6.0 cm) for the subxiphoid views, which was significantly greater than that for the parasternal (2.7 cm [95% CI 2.5-2.8 cm], P<0.001) and apical (2.5 cm [95% CI 2.3-2.7 cm], P<0.001) views. The subxiphoid view had the highest predicted complication rate at 79.7% (95% CI 71.5%-86.4%), which was significantly greater than the apical (31.9%; 95% CI 21.4%-44.0%, P<0.001) and parasternal (20.2%; 95% CI 12.8%-29.5%, P<0.001) views.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that complication rates with pericardiocentesis will be lower via the parasternal or apical approach compared to the subxiphoid approach. The distance from skin to fluid collection is the least in both of these views.

Central venous catheter placement leading to an emergent paramedian sternotomy: a case report

Perioperative cardiac tamponade during central venous catheter placement is rare. We present a case of tamponade from pulmonary artery injury during dialysis catheter placement resulting in complicated sternotomy and hospital course. A 52-year-old female experienced intraoperative hypotension, rapidly identified as tamponade, that was treated with an emergent paramedian sternotomy. Patient experienced postdischarge dehiscence and osteomyelitis requiring multiple reoperations. This case is the first report of a deviated paramedian sternotomy performed mainly through ribs. The complications experienced outline the importance of effective multidisciplinary knowledge of best practices to stabilize tamponade pathology, mitigating morbidity and mortality.

A contemporary look at pericardiocentesis

Percutaneous drainage is the default strategy for evacuating a pericardial effusion. A pericardiocentesis can be necessary or required in a wide variety of clinical settings ranging from urgent tamponade to relieve in iatrogenic hemorrhagic effusions in the electrophysiology or catheterization room, to planned diagnostic procedures in patients with suspected or known malignancy or infections. With the help of several procedural improvements over the past decades, echocardiography and fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis has become the standard intervention for evacuating pericardial effusions, as well as an essential tool in the diagnostic work-up of an unexplained pericardial effusion. When performed by skilled physicians assisted by appropriate imaging it is a very safe procedure, and provided that an indwelling catheter is placed, it is also very effective with an acceptably low risk of recurrences. In this review, the indications and standard techniques for pericardiocentesis are discussed, as well as their consequences for patients with iatrogenic and malignant effusions.

Inpatient mortality and its predictors after pericardiocentesis: An analysis from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

National registries have provided data on in-hospital outcomes for several cardiac procedures. The available data on in-hospital outcomes and its predictors after pericardiocentesis are mostly derived from single center studies. Furthermore, the outcomes after pericardiocentesis for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and the impact of procedural volume on in-hospital outcomes in the United States are largely unknown.

METHODS

We used national inpatient database files for the years 2009-2013 to estimate the inpatient outcomes after pericardiocentesis in all-comers and in the subgroups with iatrogenic effusion. We also studied the impact of hospital procedural volume, among other predictors, on inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

About 64,070 (95%CI 61 008-67 051) pericardiocentesis were performed in the United States during 2009-2013. Of these, 57.15% (56.02-58.26%) of the pericardiocentesis were in hemodynamically unstable patients. Percutaneous cardiac procedures were performed in 17.7% of patients (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 4.02%, electrophysiologic procedures 13.58%, and structural heart intervention (SHI) 0.76%). Overall inpatient mortality was 12.30% (95%CI 11.66-12.96%). Inpatient mortality after PCI, electrophysiologic procedures, SHI and cardiac surgery were 27.67% (95%CI 24-31.67%), 7.8% (95%CI 6.67-9.31%), 22.36% (95%CI 15.06-31.85%) and 18.97% (95%CI 15.84-22.57%), respectively. There was an inverse association between hospital procedural volume and inpatient mortality, with a mortality of 14.01% (12.84-15.26%) at the lowest and 10.82% (9.44-12.37%) at highest quartile hospitals by procedure volume (p_trend = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The inpatient mortality after pericardiocentesis is high, particularly when associated with PCI and SHI.

Pericardial effusion-induced subcutaneous edema in the trunk and lower limbs after percutaneous drainage for carcinomatous pericarditis: report of a case

The recurrence of gastric cancer is rarely associated with cardiac tamponade induced by carcinomatous pericarditis. We encountered a patient in whom cancer recurred as carcinomatous pericarditis 9 years after surgery for advanced gastric cancer. Furthermore, pericardial effusion caused marked subcutaneous edema in her trunk and lower limbs after percutaneous pericardial drainage was applied to treat cardiac tamponade. A 49-year-old woman presented with lower limb edema and exertional dyspnea 9 years after distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Chest computed tomography and ultrasonography showed bilateral pleural effusion and pericardial effusion. Pericardial drainage and thoracocentesis were performed, and her symptoms of respiratory distress remitted. Class V adenocarcinoma was detected on cytology from both effusions, and was diagnosed as the recurrence of gastric cancer. After systemic chemotherapy, she was admitted for the aggravation of dyspnea because of recurrent retention of pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis was repeated. The pericardial effusion became subcutaneously retained in the trunk below the puncture site over the lower limbs via the drainage route. Edema in the trunk below the abdomen and lower limbs gradually aggravated over time. The skin extended and became sclerotic because of severe edema, liquid leaked from abdominal skin injuries, and the condition became similar to skin lymphorrhea in lymphedema. Neoplastic cardiac tamponade due to gastric cancer has an extremely low incidence and a poor prognosis. We encountered a patient in whom pericardial effusion caused subcutaneous edema in the trunk and lower limbs after percutaneous pericardial drainage was applied to treat carcinomatous pericarditis associated with gastric cancer.

Development of a New Pericardiocentesis Assist Device: Design Proposal and Evaluation of the Pericardium Grasping Mechanism

[abstFig src='/00280004/16.jpg' width='300' text='The pericardium grasp mechanism for pericardiocentesis' ] Complication ratio of the pericardiocentesis was reported 4.7%, due to the procedure using needle. To decrease complication of the pericardiocentesis, purposes of this study was to develop a new pericardiocentesis assist device without needle. The proposed device was able to aspirate fluid inside the pericardial space by grasping and cutting the pericardium. To cut the pericardium, the device needed to grasp the pericardium surely. In this paper, we designed pericardium grasping mechanism. The result of the structural analysis using the finite element method showed proposed grasping mechanism could keep grasping force of 120 N and pericardium elastic force of 2.7 N without fracture. Results of in vitro porcine pericardium grasping experiment using a proposed device model showed that the pericardium grasping force was elucidated to need more than 7.5 N, while the pericardium elastic force was 2.44 N. The proposed pericardium grasping mechanism could grasp a porcine pericardium securely without fracture.

Complications of pericardiocentesis: A clinical synopsis

Pericardiocentesis (PC) is both a diagnostic and a potentially life-saving therapeutic procedure. Currently echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis is considered the standard clinical practice in the treatment of large pericardial effusions and cardiac tamponade. Although considered relatively safe, this invasive procedure may be associated with certain risks and potentially serious complications. This review provides a summary of pericardiocentesis and a focused overview of the potential complications of this procedure.