Rationale and Objectives
To compare short-term outcomes of CT-guided percutaneous pericardial drainage (PPD) versus subxiphoid surgical pericardial window (PW) drainage and analyze the risk factors associated with their outcomes.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent either percutaneous drainage with drainage catheter placement or PW with surgical drain placement for symptomatic pericardial effusion between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2016 was performed after institutional review board approval (decision number 16-783). The primary objective was to test for associations between the short-term (≤30 days post procedure) complication and recurrence rates in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusions. The secondary objectives were to test for associations between short-term complications with changes in vital signs.
Of the 257 procedures included in the final analysis, 142 were in the percutaneous drainage group. Short-term complication rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in patients undergoing PW, 17% (19/114), as compared with PPD, 2% (3/142). The estimated odds of having complications in the PW cohort was 9 times greater than the percutaneous drainage cohort (OR = 9.3, 95% CI: 2.7-32.3). No significant difference was observed between whether or not a patient experienced a short-term recurrence and any of the explanatory variables (patient demographics, imaging, and vital signs).
CT-guided PPD is a safer alternative to surgical PW as it leads to fewer complications without a significant difference in recurrence rate of pericardial effusion.
Abbreviations:CT (computed tomography), CPT (current procedural terminology), DBP (diastolic blood pressure), Fr (French), HR (heart rate), IQR (interquartile rank), IR (interventional radiology), MAP (mean arterial pressure), OR (odds ratio), PPD (percutaneous pericardial drainage), PW (pericardial window), SBP (systolic blood pressure), US (ultrasound)
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Academic Radiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Pericardial effusions: causes, diagnosis, and management.Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2017; 59: 380-388https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2016.12.009
- Pericardial effusion.Cardiol Clin. 2017; 35: 515-524https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccl.2017.07.005
- Pericardial effusion.StatPearls, Treasure Island, FL2020
- Cardiac tamponade.Cardiol Clin. 1990; 8: 627-637
- Pericardial effusion and tamponade.Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 1999; 1: 79-89https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-999-0010-z
- Diagnosis and management of pericardial effusion.World J Cardiol. 2011; 3: 135-143https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v3.i5.135
- Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases executive summary; The Task force on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European society of cardiology.Eur Hear J. 2004; 25: 587-610https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2004.02.002
- Percutaneous pericardial catheter drainage: report of 42 consecutive cases.Am J Cardiol. 1986; 58: 633-635https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(86)90290-0
- Comparison of open subxiphoid pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for symptomatic pericardial effusion.Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 76 (discussion 816): 811-815https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(03)00665-9
- Comparison of surgical pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for pericardial effusion.J Invasive Cardiol. 2012; 24: 590-593
- Comparison of outcomes of pericardiocentesis versus surgical pericardial window in patients requiring drainage of pericardial effusions.Am J Cardiol. 2017; 120: 883-890https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.06.003
- CT-guided pericardial drainage : a safe and viable alternative to ultrasound-guided drainage.Semin Intervent Radiol. 2022; 39: 329-333
- Pericardiocentesis guided by 2-D echocardiography: the method of choice for treatment of pericardial effusion.J Intern Med. 2003; 253: 411-417https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01103.x
- CT-guided tube pericardiostomy: a safe and effective technique in the management of postsurgical pericardial effusion.Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 193: 314-320https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1834
- Triage strategy for urgent management of cardiac tamponade: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on myocardial and pericardial diseases.Eur Hear J. 2014; 35: 2279-2284https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu217
- Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the society of interventional radiology standards of practice committee.J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017; 28: 1432-1437.e3https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.06.019
- 2015 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases: the task force for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) endorsed by: the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surg.Eur Hear J. 2015; 36: 2921-2964https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv318
- Pericardial effusion: subxiphoid pericardiostomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage.Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67: 437-440https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(98)01192-8
- The efficiency of surgical subxiphoid pericardial drainage and percutaneous pericardial drainage in pericardial effusions associated with cardiac tamponade.Chir. 2013; 108: 226-233
- Retrospective comparison of outcomes, diagnostic value, and complications of percutaneous prolonged drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy of pericardial effusion associated with malignancy.Am J Cardiol. 2013; 112: 1235-1239https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.066
- Safety, efficacy, and complications of pericardiocentesis by real-time echo-monitored procedure.Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117: 1369-1374https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.043
- CT directed diagnostic and therapeutic pericardiocentesis: 8-year experience at a single institution.Emerg Radiol. 2005; 11: 353-363https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-004-0389-5
- Pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery: incidence, site, size, and haemodynamic consequences.Br Hear J. 1994; 72: 327-331https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.72.4.327
- The incidence and natural history of pericardial effusion after cardiac surgery–an echocardiographic study.Circulation. 1984; 69: 506-511https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.69.3.506
- Pericardial effusion and pericardial compartments after open heart surgery. An analysis by computed tomography and echocardiography.Acta Radiol. 1990; 31: 41-46
Published online: March 14, 2023
Accepted: February 16, 2023
Received in revised form: February 9, 2023
Received: November 9, 2022
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
© 2023 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.