Prognostic factors affecting survival of patients with cancer-related pericardial effusion managed by surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although pericardial effusion (PE) is not uncommon in patients with cancer, it may lead to cardiac tamponade, a life-threatening condition. Prompt life-saving treatment is essential, and also allows the continuation of the cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic factors for survival in patients with cancer who were treated surgically for PE. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 55 patients with cancer with PE between January 2003 and October 2012, who were treated with a pericardial window operation. Overall survival (OS) was estimated from the date of surgery, and patients were followed until the time of the final visit or time of death. Clinical outcomes and candidate prognostic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 57 years (range 29 to 82 years), and 31 patients (56.4%) were male. The most common primary malignancy was lung cancer (65.5%), followed by breast cancer (10.9%). Fifteen patients (27.3%) developed recurrence of PE after surgery. The median OS duration was 4 months (range 0 to 39 months). Multivariate analysis found that evidence of pericardial metastasis on preoperative imaging (P = 0.029) and confirmation of malignant cells in the PE and/or pericardial tissue (P = 0.034) were associated with reduced OS. CONCLUSION: Evidence of pericardial metastasis on preoperative imaging and cytopathologic confirmation that the PE and/or pericardial tissue are positive for malignant cells can be used to predict poor clinical outcomes in patients with cancer-related PE.

Acute type A aortic dissection with cardiac tamponade: unexpected late survival without aortic surgery.

Acute type A aortic dissection complicated by cardiac tamponade portends a lethal prognosis. We report the unusual case of an older female who unexpectedly survived for more than one year after presentation with acute dissection and tamponade. She was treated with a pericardial window and remains alive now four years after presentation.

Systemic chemotherapy in combination with pericardial window has better outcomes in malignant pericardial effusions.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare systemic chemotherapy (CT) with drainage and with pericardial window in the treatment of neoplastic pericarditis in patients with various malignancies included in the International Neoplastic Pericarditis Treatment study. METHODS: Patients treated with systemic CT alone (Group A), CT plus drainage (Group B), or CT plus pericardial window (Group C) were included. Treatment response was defined as complete response (ie, no more pericardial effusion or masses), partial response (ie, reduced total score, without requiring further treatments), stable disease (ie, unchanged total score), or progressive disease (ie, increased total score). Patients with partial or complete response were considered responders. RESULTS: This preliminary report included 175 patients (56.6% male) with a mean age of 54.21±14.26 years. Gender distribution, age, and follow-up duration was similar for all groups (P>.05). Prevalent cancer types were lung cancer (50.9%), breast cancer (14.9%), and lymphoma/leukemia (14.9%). Overall, 22.3%, 42.9%, and 34.9% of patients were in treatment group A, B, and C, respectively. There were 132 responders (75.3%). The rate of responders significantly differed between groups (P<.001); it was significantly higher in Group B than in Group A (P<.05) and in Group C than in Group B (P=.006). The significant factors affecting response were therapy (P=.002) and extent of effusion (P=.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients in Group C had a significantly better survival rate than patients in the other groups (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic CT plus pericardial window is a more effective treatment option compared with systemic CT alone and systemic CT plus drainage in patients with malignant effusions.

Risk factors affecting the survival rate in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion undergoing surgical intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal management and treatment of pericardial effusion are still controversial. There is limited data related to the risk factors affecting survival in these patients. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors affecting the survival rate of patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion who underwent surgical interventions. METHODS: From 2004 to 2011, we retrospectively analysed 153 patients who underwent subxiphoid pericardial window as their surgical intervention to drain pericardial effusions at the National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung diseases (NRITLD). To determine the effects of risk factors on survival rate, demographic data, clinical records, echocardiographic data, computed tomographic and cytopathological findings and also operative information of patients were recorded. Patients were followed annually until the last clinical follow-up (August 2011). To determine the prognostic factors affecting survival, both univariate analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model were utilized. RESULTS: There were 89 men and 64 women with a mean age of 50.3 ± 15.5 years. The most prevalent symptom was dyspnoea. Concurrent malignancies were present in 66 patients. Lungs were the most prevalent primary site for malignancy. The median duration of follow-up was 15 (range 1-85 months). Six-month, 1-year and 18-month survival rates were 85.6, 61.4 and 36.6%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, positive history of lung cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 2.894, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.362-6.147, P = 0.006) or other organ cancers (HR 2.315, 95% CI 1.009-50311, P = 0.048), presence of a mass in the computed tomography (HR 1.985, 95% CI 1.100-3.581, P = 0.023), and echocardiographic findings compatible with tamponade (HR 1.745, 95% CI 1.048-2.90 P = 0.032) were the three independent predictors of postoperative death. CONCLUSIONS: In the surgical management of pericardial effusion, patients with underlying malignant disease, especially with lung cancer, patients with a detectable invasion of thorax in computed tomography and those with positive echocardiographic findings compatible with tamponade have a poor survival. Therefore, minimally invasive therapies could be considered as a more acceptable alternative for these high-risk patients.

Pericardial effusions in the cancer population: prognostic factors after pericardial window and the impact of paradoxical hemodynamic instability.

OBJECTIVE: In the cancer population, pericardial effusions are a common and potentially life-threatening occurrence. Although decompression benefits most patients, paradoxical hemodynamic instability (PHI) develops in some, with hypotension and shock in the immediate postoperative period. This study examines paradoxical hemodynamic instability after pericardial window and identifies prognostic factors in patients with cancer who are treated for pericardial effusion. METHODS: Retrospective review of 179 consecutive pericardial windows performed for pericardial effusion in a tertiary cancer center over a 5-year period (January 2004 through March 2009). Demographic, surgical, pathologic, and echocardiographic data were analyzed for the end points of paradoxical hemodynamic instability (pressor-dependent hypotension requiring intensive care unit admission) and overall survival. RESULTS: The most common malignancies were lung (44%), breast (20%), hematologic (10%), and gastrointestinal (7%). Overall survival for the group was poor (median, 5 months); patients with hematologic malignant disease fared significantly better than the others (median survival 36 months; P = .008). Paradoxical hemodynamic instability occurred in 19 (11%) patients. These patients were more likely to have evidence of tamponade on echocardiogram (89% vs 56%; P = .005), positive cytology/pathology (68% vs 41%; P = .03), and higher volume drained (674 mL vs 495 mL; P = .003). Overall survival was significantly shorter in those in whom paradoxical hemodynamic instability developed (median survival 35 vs 189 days; hazard ratio = 3; P < .001), and the majority of them (11/19, 58%) did not survive their hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative hemodynamic instability after pericardial window portends a grave prognosis. Evidence of tamponade, larger effusion volumes, and positive cytologic findings may predict a higher risk of paradoxical hemodynamic instability and anticipate a need for invasive monitoring and intensive care postoperatively.