Cardiac MRI after first episode of acute pericarditis: A pilot study for better identification of high risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was proposed as an accurate non-invasive tool to evaluate pericardial inflammation. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of CMR early in the course of the first episode of acute pericarditis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A clinical registry of consecutive patients who underwent clinical indicated CMR due to pericardial disease from January 2014 to January 2020 was screened. We analyzed patients with the clinical diagnosis of first episode of acute pericarditis needing hospitalization less than 7 days before CMR. Outcome measures were obtained using a single combined end-point, defined as pericardial event, including all the following: recurrent pericarditis, chronic constrictive pericarditis, surgery for pericardial disease. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients meet the study criteria and were enrolled. A mean follow-up of 34 ± 7 months was obtained and a second episode of pericardial event were recorded in 9 patients. At multivariate analysis adjusted for propensity score, based on clinical significative variable (younger age and higher CRP) the association between pericardial inflammation identified by CMR (positive late gadolinium enhancement on pericardium) and recurrence of pericardial events was confirmed [OR (95%CI) 8.94 (1.74-45.80), p = 0.008]. CONCLUSION: Pericardial inflammation identified by CMR, with LGE images, has a prognostic value independently from clinical and bio-humoral variables.

Prevalence and prognosis of pericardial effusion in patients affected by pectus excavatum: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The presence of pectus excavatum(PEX) has been occasionally associated with pericardial effusion. Aim of the present study was to compare incidence and prognosis of pericardial effusion in a group of unselected patients with PEX vs a control group. METHODS: From a prospective registry of consecutive patients who underwent chest CT for cardiovascular disease, subjects with a radiological diagnosis of PEX were retrospectively identified (cases); from the same registry patients (controls) without rib cage abnormalities were randomly selected, until a 1:2 ratio was reached. The presence of pericardial effusion at CT was quantified. Follow-up was obtained for a composite end-point: cardiac tamponade, need for pericardiocentesis, need for cardiac surgery for relapsing pericardial effusion. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients with PEX (20 females) and a control group of 86 cases (31 females) without rib cage abnormalities were identified. Pericardial effusion evaluated at CT was significatively more prevalent in patients with PEX vs control group, 37.2% vs 13.9% (p < 0.001), respectively; four patients with PEX (9.3%) had at least moderate pericardial effusion vs no subjects among the controls (p = 0.004). PEX diagnosis was significantly associated to pericardial effusion at multi-variate analysis (OR95%CI 10.91[3.47-34.29], p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 6.5 ± 3.4 years no pericardial events were recorded. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the higher prevalence of pericardial effusion in patients with PEX when compared to a control group. The absence of adverse pericardial events at follow-up suggest the good prognosis of these effusions, that in the appropriate clinical setting might not be considered "idiopathic".