Pericardiocentesis versus pericardiotomy for malignant pericardial effusion: a retrospective comparison

Pericardiocentesis versus window formation in malignant pericardial effusion: trends and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) in patients with cancer is associated with poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes in patients with cancer who underwent pericardiocentesis versus pericardial window formation.

METHODS

In the present study, 765 consecutive patients with cancer (mean age 58.4 years, 395 men) who underwent pericardial drainage between 2003 and 2022 were retrospectively analysed. All-cause death and MPE recurrence were compared based on the drainage method (pericardiocentesis vs pericardial window formation) and time period (period 1: 2003-2012; period 2: 2013-2022).

RESULTS

Pericardiocentesis was performed in 639 (83.5%) patients and pericardial window formation in 126 (16.5%). There was no difference in age, sex distribution, proportion of metastatic or relapsed cancer, and chemotherapy status between the pericardiocentesis and pericardial window formation groups. Difference was not found in all-cause death between the two groups (log-rank p=0.226) regardless of the period. The pericardial window formation group was associated with lower MPE recurrence than the pericardiocentesis group (6.3% vs 18.0%, log-rank p=0.001). This advantage of pericardial window formation was more significant in period 2 (18.1% vs 1.3%, log-rank p=0.005). In multivariate analysis, pericardial window formation was associated with lower MPE recurrence (HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.63, p=0.001); younger age, metastatic or relapsed cancer, and positive malignant cells in pericardial fluid were associated with increased recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing pericardial drainage for MPE, pericardial window formation showed mortality outcomes comparable with pericardiocentesis and was associated with lower incidence of MPE recurrence.

Epidemiological characteristics, etiological spectrum, and outcomes of adult patients with pericardial effusion at a Teaching Hospital in Somalia

Background

Pericardial effusion (PE) is an abnormal fluid volume in the pericardial space and is a common clinical entity. The incidence of PE is estimated diversely and depends on risk factors, etiologies, and geographic locations.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, etiologic spectrum, echocardiographic features, and outcomes among patients with different types of PE.

Method

This retrospective observational study included 93 patients with confirmed PE. Their medical records were reviewed in the hospital information system of Mogadishu Somali Turkish Training and Research Hospital between April 2022 and September 2022. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, chest X-rays, echocardiography, laboratory findings, management approaches, and outcome reports were reviewed and recorded.

Results

Out of the 3000 participants, 3.1% (n = 93/3000) met the definition of definitive PE. In this study, we included 51 females and 42 males. Among the patients, 86% (n = 80) had at least one comorbidity, with diabetes (38.7%) and hypertension (37.6%) being the most common. The most frequently reported clinical presentation findings were shortness of breath (67.7%), chest pain (49.4%), cough (47.3%), and palpitations (47.3%). Cardiac tamponade developed in 9.7% (n = 9) of the patients. Pericardial taps were performed in 64.5% of the cases. Our analysis showed that the most common cause of PE was cardiac disease (n = 33, 35.4%), followed by tuberculosis (TB) (n = 25, 26.8%), uremic pericarditis (n = 24, 25.8%), and hypothyroidism (n = 10, 10.7%). Regarding the severity of PE based on echocardiographic findings, nearly half of the patients (n = 46, 49.4%) had mild PE, whereas 26.8% (n = 25) had moderate PE, and 23.6% (n = 22) had severe PE. Two-thirds of the cases (66.6%) were managed with furosemide, 48 (51.6%) patients were treated with an anti-inflammatory, hemodialysis was performed in 24 (25.8%) patients and antituberculous medications were administered to 7 (7.5%) patients. Out of the 93 patients, 24 (25.8%) died during the hospital stay. It was determined that the mortality risk of patients with renal failure was 7.518 times higher than those without (p = 0.004), and the risk for those with TB was 5.554 times higher than those without (p = 0.011). Other variables were not influential on mortality (p > 0.050).

Conclusion

Our study results demonstrate the epidemiological profile of PE in Somalia. The leading causes of PE were cardiac diseases, uremic pericarditis, TB, and hypothyroidism. PE is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in Somalia, especially in individuals with renal failure and TB infection.

Management of Pericardial Effusion in Patients With Solid Tumor: An Algorithmic, Multidisciplinary Approach Results in Reduced Mortality After Paradoxical Hemodynamic Instability

OBJECTIVE

This study compared outcomes in patients with solid tumor treated for pericardial effusion with surgical drainage versus interventional radiology (IR) percutaneous drainage and compared incidence of paradoxical hemodynamic instability (PHI) between cohorts.

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced-stage solid malignancies may develop large pericardial effusions requiring intervention. PHI is a fatal and underreported complication that occurs following pericardial effusion drainage.

METHODS

Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with solid tumors who underwent s urgical drainage or IR percutaneous drainage for pericardial effusion from 2010 to 2020.

RESULTS

Among 447 patients, 243 were treated with surgical drainage, of which 27 (11%) developed PHI, compared with 7 of 204 patients (3%) who were treated with IR percutaneous drainage ( P =0.002); overall incidence of PHI decreased during the study period. Rates of reintervention (30-day: 1% vs 4%; 90-day: 4% vs 6%, P =0.7) and mortality (30-day: 21% vs 17%, P =0.3; 90-day: 39% vs 37%, P =0.7) were not different between patients treated with surgical drainage and IR percutaneous drainage. For both interventions, OS was shorter among patients with PHI than among patients without PHI (surgical drainage, median [95% confidence interval] OS, 0.89 mo [0.33-2.1] vs 6.5 mo [5.0-8.9], P <0.001; IR percutaneous drainage, 3.7 mo [0.23-6.8] vs 5.0 mo [4.0-8.1], P =0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

With a coordinated multidisciplinary approach focusing on prompt clinical and echocardiographic evaluation, triage with bias toward IR percutaneous drainage than surgical drainage and postintervention intensive care resulted in lower incidence of PHI and improved outcomes.

A case series of malignant pericardial effusion

The most common primary malignancies that affect the pericardium are lung cancers. Typically, pericardial involvement stays undiagnosed, with almost 1-20% of all tumor-related autopsies revealing invasion of the pericardium. Pericardial effusions are seldom the first location of metastasis and presentation of a primary malignancy. Malignant pericardial effusions are usually silent, although they cause dyspnea, chest discomfort, arrhythmias, cough, and, in rare cases, pericardial tamponade. In a patient with tamponade, a high index of tumor-related suspicion is crucial to rule out cancer. Emergency pericardiocentesis is indicated based on the clinical presentation, however, the patient frequently has a bad prognosis regardless of whether treatment is administered or not. In this case series, we report five cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with pericardial effusion as an initial presentation.

Diagnosis, treatment, and management of pericardial effusion- review

The hemodynamic stability of the heart and pericardium are maintained by the pericardial fluid of volume ∼10–50 ml. Pericardial effusion is associated with the abnormal accumulation of pericardial fluid in the pericardial cavity. Numerous imaging techniques are utilized to evaluate pericardial effusion including chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, computed tomography scan, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and pericardiocentesis. Once diagnosed, there are numerous treatment options available for the management of patients with pericardial effusion. These include various invasive and non-invasive strategies such as pericardiocentesis, pericardial window, and sclerosing therapies. In recent times, few studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each approach in routine clinical practice. In this review, we review the role of different modalities in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion while highlighting existing therapies aimed at the management and treatment of pericardial effusion.

•

Numerous imaging techniques are utilized to evaluate pericardial effusion (PE) including chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, CT scan, cardiac MRI, and pericardiocentesis.

•

Multiple treatment options are available for the management of patients with PE including pericardiocentesis, pericardial window, and sclerosing therapies.

•

Recent studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of various diagnostic and management techniques in routine clinical practice.

•

Further research is needed to investigate the optimal diagnostic and treatment options for patients with PE.

Large Pericardial Effusion—Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options, with a Special Attention to the Role of Prolonged Pericardial Fluid Drainage

Background: Large pericardial effusion (LPE) is associated with high mortality. In patients with cardiac tamponade or with suspected bacterial etiology of pericardial effusion, urgent pericardial decompression is necessary. Aim: The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess the short-term results of pericardial decompression combined with prolonged drainage in LPE. Material: This study included consecutive patients with LPE who had been treated with pericardial fluid drainage between 2007 and 2017 in the National Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases Research Institute. Methods: Echocardiographic examination was used to confirm LPE and the signs of cardiac tamponade. Pericardiocentesis or surgical decompression were combined with pericardial fluid (PF) drainage. Short-term effectiveness of therapy was defined as less than 5 mm of fluid behind the left ventricular posterior wall in echocardiography. Results: The analysis included 74 patients treated with pericardial fluid drainage (33 female and 41 male), mean age 58 years, who underwent pericardial decompression. Out of 74 patients, 26 presented with cardiac tamponade symptoms. Pericardiocentesis was performed in 18 patients and pericardiotomy in 56 patients. Median PF drainage duration was 13 days. In 17 out of 25 patients with neoplastic PF, intrapericardial cisplatin therapy was implemented. In 4 out of 49 patients with non-malignant PF, purulent pericarditis was recognized and intrapericardial fibrinolysis was used. Short-term effectiveness of the therapy was obtained in all of patients. Non-infective complications were noted in 16% of patients and infective ones in 10%. Conclusion: Pericardial decompression combined with prolonged PF drainage was safe and efficient method of LPE treatment.

Recurrence of pericardial effusion after different procedure modalities in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Lung cancer with related pericardial effusion is not rare. Intervention is a crucial step for symptomatic effusion. It is unknown, however, whether the different invasive interventions for pericardial effusion result in different survival outcomes. This study analyzed the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone different procedures.

Methods

From January 2006 to June 2018, we collected data from patients with NSCLC who have received invasive intervention for pericardial effusions. The patients were divided into three categories: simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy. Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test were used to analyze the pericardial effusion recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 244 patients were enrolled. Adenocarcinoma (83.6%) was the major NSCLC subtype. Invasive intervention, including simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy, had been carried out on 52, 170, and 22 patients, respectively. The 1-year RFS rates in simple pericardiocentesis, balloon pericardiotomy, and surgical pericardiectomy were 19.2%, 31.2%, and 31.8%, respectively (P = 0.128), and the median RFS was 1.67, 5.03, and 8.32 months, respectively (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in OS, however, with the median OS at 1.67, 6.43, and 8.32 months, respectively (P = 0.064). According to the multivariable analysis, the gravity in pericardial fluid analysis, receiving systemic therapy after pericardial effusion, and the time period from stage IV lung cancer to the presence of pericardial effusion were independent prognostic factors for pericardial effusion RFS and OS.

Conclusions

Patients who have undergone simple pericardiocentesis alone for the management of NSCLC-related pericardial effusion have lower 1-year RFS rates than those who have undergone balloon pericardiotomy and surgical pericardiectomy. Therefore, balloon pericardiotomy and surgical pericardiectomy should be carried out for patients with NSCLC-related pericardial effusion if tolerable.

•

This is the first study to compare the three common procedures to manage NSCLC-related pericardial effusion.

•

Simple pericardiocentesis group had lower 1-year RFS rate than balloon pericardiotomy or surgical pericardiectomy group.

•

Surgical pericardiectomy as management demonstrated an improving OS trend.

Evaluation and management of cancer patients presenting with acute cardiovascular disease: a Consensus Document of the Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) association and the ESC council of Cardio-Oncology-Part 1: acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases

Advances in treatment, common cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and the ageing of the population have led to an increasing number of cancer patients presenting with acute CV diseases. These events may be related to the cancer itself or the cancer treatment. Acute cardiac care specialists must be aware of these acute CV complications and be able to manage them. This may require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. We summarize the most common acute CV complications of cytotoxic, targeted, and immune-based therapies. This is followed by a proposal for a multidisciplinary approach where acute cardiologists work close together with the treating oncologists, haematologists, and radiation specialists, especially in situations where immediate therapeutic decisions are needed. In this first part, we further focus on the management of acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases in patients with cancer.

Lung Adenocarcinoma Presenting as Malignant Pericardial Effusion/Tamponade

Lung cancers are the most common primary tumors that involve the pericardium with a prevalence of up to 50%. Usually, pericardial involvement goes undetected with almost 10%-12% found among all cancer related autopsies. Rarely pericardial effusions can be the initial site of metastasis and initial manifestation of a primary tumor. In our case, we report a 57-year-old female presenting with cardiac tamponade and subsequent testing was done which revealed lung adenocarcinoma. Malignant pericardial effusions are often silent, but certain times can present with symptoms of shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, arrhythmias, and rarely as pericardial tamponade. A high index of suspicion is required when a patient presents with tamponade to diagnose malignancy. Emergent pericardiocentesis may be warranted depending on the clinical presentation but quite often, patients tend to have a poor prognosis despite therapy given the extent of disease.

Effectiveness and outcomes of 2 therapeutic interventions for cardiac tamponade: A retrospective observational study

Pericardial effusions can either be drained by percutaneous pericardiocentesis (PCC) or by surgical pericardiotomy (SP), with limited evidence of superiority for the management of cardiac tamponade (CTa).This study uses the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to investigate the effectiveness of SP and PCC in patients with CTa in terms of clinical outcomes and healthcare costs.Retrospective observational study conducted on the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample 2014 dataset CTa patients. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to assess the impact of different procedures (none, SP, PCC, SP, and PCC) on mortality.A total of 10,410 CTa patients were included, of which 28.9% underwent no procedure, 32.9% underwent SP, 30.2% underwent PCC and 8.0% underwent SP and PCC. Mortality rates were highest in patients undergoing no procedure (22.3%) followed by PCC (15.0%), SP and PCC (11.5%), and then SP (9.6%) (P < .001). SP patients had longer length of stay (11.65 vs 8.16 days, P < .001) and higher total charges ($162,889.1 vs $100,802, P < .001) compared to PCC patients. Undergoing any procedure for CTa reduced the rate of mortality compared to no procedure with SP being the most effective (OR = 0.323, 95%CI 0.244-0.429), followed by SP & PCC (OR = 0.387, 95% CI 0.239-0.626), and then PCC (OR = 0.582, 95% CI 0.446-0.760).Adult CTa patients treated with SP had lower mortality rates but longer length of stay and higher healthcare expenses. This SP associated benefit remained consistent across different subpopulations after stratifying by age and potential disease etiology.

Intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin prevents recurrence of malignant pericardial effusions: Series of 46 cases and comprehensive literature review

INTRODUCTION

Malignant pericardial effusion is a severe complication of lung and breast cancer. The median survival is less than 4 months and recurrences occurs in about 40% of cases. Systemic chemotherapy and/or local treatments are necessary, even if there is no consensus.

METHODS

We collected data from patients in our center from 1997 to 2016 who received at least one intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin (60mg). At the same time, we conducted a review of the relevant literature on the subject.

RESULTS

We included 46 patients in the analysis. Median survival was 2.6 months [95% CI: 1.7; 4.7]. Overall survival was 49% [33%; 63%] at 3 months and 28% [15%; 42%] at 6 months. In the lung cancer subgroup, overall survival was 18% [3%; 44%] at 3 months. In the breast cancer subgroup, overall survival was 73% [44%; 89%] at 3 months and 46% [21%; 69%] at 6 months.

DISCUSSION

The best response rates in the literature are obtained with local instillation of bleomycin or cisplatin. Malignant pericardial effusions in breast cancer patients had a better prognosis. This is certainly related to the prognosis of the underlying disease. We have not found an increase in overall survival with intrapericardial chemotherapy injections, but preventing recurrence of malignant pericardial effusions is a benefit in itself, thus avoiding a lethal complication.

Mid-Term Efficacy of Subxiphoid Versus Transpleural Pericardial Window for Pericardial Effusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical technique for drainage of pericardial effusions is frequently debated. Transpleural drainage via thoracotomy or thoracoscopy is hypothesized to provide more durable freedom from recurrent pericardial effusion than a subxiphoid pericardial window. We sought to compare operative outcomes and mid-term freedom from recurrent effusion between both approaches in patients with nontraumatic pericardial effusions.

METHODS

All patients at our institution who underwent a pericardial window from 2001 to 2018 were identified. After excluding those who underwent recent cardiothoracic surgery or trauma, patients (n = 46) were stratified by surgical approach and presence of malignancy. Primary outcome was freedom from recurrent moderate or greater pericardial effusion. Secondary outcomes included operative mortality and morbidity and mid-term survival. Follow-up was determined by medical record review, with a follow-up of 67 patient-years. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare groups. Mid-term survival and freedom from effusion recurrence were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Subxiphoid windows (n = 31; 67%) were more frequently performed than transpleural windows (n = 15; 33%) and baseline characteristics were similar. Effusion etiologies included malignancy (n = 22; 48%), idiopathic (n = 12; 26%), uremia (n = 8; 17%), and collagen vascular disease (n = 4; 9%). Perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two surgical approaches, except for longer drain duration (7 versus 4 d, P = 0.029) in the subxiphoid group. Operative mortality was 19.6% overall and 36.4% in patients with malignancy. Mid-term survival and freedom from moderate or greater pericardial effusion recurrence was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19%-54%) and 69% (95% CI: 52%-86%) at 5 y, respectively. There was no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.90) or freedom from pericardial effusion recurrence (P = 0.70) between surgical approaches. Although malignant etiology had worse late survival (P < 0.01), freedom from effusion recurrence was similar to nonmalignant etiology (P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Pericardial window provides effective mid-term relief of pericardial effusion. Subxiphoid and transpleural windows are equivalent in mid-term efficacy and both surgical approaches can be considered. Patients with malignancy have acceptable operative mortality with low incidence of recurrent effusion, supporting palliative indications.

Cardiac Interventional Procedures in Cardio-Oncology Patients

Comorbidities specific to the cardio-oncology population contribute to the challenges in the interventional management of patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with cancer have generally been excluded from cardiovascular randomized clinical trials. Endovascular procedures may represent a valid option in patients with cancer with a range of CVDs because of their minimally invasive nature. Patients with cancer are less likely to be treated according to societal guidelines because of perceived high risk. This article presents the specific challenges that interventional cardiologists face when caring for patients with cancer and the modern tools to optimize care.

Pericardial diseases in patients with cancer: contemporary prevalence, management and outcomes

Neoplastic pericardial effusion is a common and serious manifestation of advanced malignancies. Lung and breast carcinoma, haematological malignancies, and gastrointestinal cancer are the most common types of cancer involving the pericardium. Pericardial involvement in neoplasia may arise from several different pathophysiological mechanisms and may be manifested by pericardial effusion with or without tamponade, effusive-constrictive pericarditis and constrictive pericarditis. Management of these patients is a complex multidisciplinary problem, affected by clinical status and prognosis of patients.

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.

Pericardial Disease Associated with Malignancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pericardial effusion is commonly associated with malignancy. The goals of treatment should include optimizing symptom relief, minimizing repeat interventions, and restoring as much functional status as possible.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pericardiocentesis should be the first intervention but has high recurrence rates (30-60%). For patients with recurrence, repeat pericardiocentesis is indicated in those with limited expected lifespans. Extended pericardial drainage decreases recurrence to 10-20%. The addition of sclerosing agents decreases recurrence slightly but creates significant pain and can lead to pericardial constriction and therefore has fallen out of favor. Most patients with symptomatic pericardial disease have a short median survival time due to their underlying disease. In patients with a longer life expectancy, surgical drainage offers the lowest recurrence rate. Surgical approach is based on effusion location and clinical condition. Subxiphoid and thoracoscopic approaches lead to similar outcomes. Thoracotomy should be avoided as it increases morbidity without improving outcomes.

Etiology and Long-Term Outcome of Patients Undergoing Pericardiocentesis

Background

Pericardial effusions can be caused by a variety of disorders. The frequency of the underlying diseases varies with patient population; therefore, previously reported series are not necessarily representative of other populations. Our purpose was to examine the etiology of pericardial effusions and the survival of patients requiring pericardiocentesis at a tertiary center.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective observational study of 269 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis at our university hospital between 2006 and 2016 and had prospective follow‐up for up to 10 years. The most frequent etiologies were idiopathic (26%), malignancy (25%), and iatrogenicity (20%), whereas bacterial causes were very rare. The most frequent malignancies originated from the lung (53%) or breast (18%). A new cancer was diagnosed with malignant pericardial effusion as the presenting complaint for 9% of patients, whereas the pericardium was the first metastatic site of a known malignancy in 4% of patients. Survival was significantly poorer in malignancy‐related versus non–malignancy‐related effusions (P<0.001) and in cytology‐positive versus cytology‐negative effusions in the overall cohort (P<0.001). Among cancer‐only patients, however, there was no significant difference in long‐term survival between cytology‐positive and ‐negative effusions.

Conclusions

In this contemporary tertiary‐center cohort, pericardial effusions often represent the primary instance of a new malignancy, underscoring the importance of cytological analyses of noniatrogenic effusions in patients without known cancer, as survival is significantly worse. In cancer patients, however, the presence of pericardial malignant cytology does not appear to affect outcome significantly.

Cardiovascular Complications of Cancer Therapy: Best Practices in Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management: Part 2

In this second part of a 2-part review, we will review cancer or cancer therapy-associated systemic and pulmonary hypertension, QT prolongation, arrhythmias, pericardial disease, and radiation-induced cardiotoxicity. This review is based on a MEDLINE search of published data, published clinical guidelines, and best practices in major cancer centers. Newly developed targeted therapy can exert off-target effects causing hypertension, thromboembolism, QT prolongation, and atrial fibrillation. Radiation therapy often accelerates atherosclerosis. Furthermore, radiation can damage the heart valves, the conduction system, and pericardium, which may take years to manifest clinically. Management of pericardial disease in cancer patients also posed clinical challenges. This review highlights the unique opportunity of caring for cancer patients with heart problems caused by cancer or cancer therapy. It is an invitation to action for cardiologists to become familiar with this emerging subspecialty.

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.