RESUMO
Background: Primary pericardial mesothelioma is an extremely rare disease. Prognosis is poor, with little effects of chemo- or radio-therapy. The majority of cases is diagnosed at autopsy. Case summary: A 22-year-old man, who presented with recurrent pericarditis and large pericardial effusion 2 months after a second BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine, underwent pericardiocentesis and pericardial window. Pathology specimen of pericardium revealed benign mesothelial inflammation, consistent with acute pericarditis. Four months later, he presented with a large pericardial mass manifesting in heart failure and underwent urgent pericardiectomy. A new pathology specimen immunostaining and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis revealed pericardial mesothelioma. Despite intensive care, the patient died 3 weeks later. Discussion: Primary pericardial mesothelial should be considered in the differential diagnosis of refractory recurrent pericarditis, even with prior biopsy-proven pericarditis or when a putative trigger (COVID-19 mRNA prior vaccination) is suspected, as was the case in this patient. Tumour diagnosis and identification consist of multimodal imaging and laboratory tests. A multidisciplinary, individualized care approach should be performed.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to determine the comparative outcomes of patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs): HeartMate 2 (HM2), HeartWare (HW) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) in a real-world setting. METHODS: The study was an investigator-initiated comparative retrospective analysis of patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institution between 2008 and 2017. The follow-up duration was 18 months after implantation. RESULTS: The study included 105 continuous-flow LVAD-supported patients of whom 51% (n = 54), 24% (25) and 25% (26) underwent implantation of HM2, HW and HM3, respectively. During follow-up, patients who were supported with HM3 versus either HM2 or HW LVADs demonstrated a lower risk of stroke (0% vs 26%, P < 0.001 and 0% vs 40%, P < 0.001, respectively) and lower rates of thrombosis (0% vs 31%, P < 0.001 and 0% vs 12%, P < 0.001, respectively), findings that were consistent with their calculated haemocompatibility scores (cumulative score 5, 89 and 56 for HM3, HM2 and HW, respectively, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients supported with HM3 versus HW had fewer unplanned hospitalizations [median 1 (25th-75th interquartile range 0-2) vs 3 (interquartile range 2-4), P = 0.012]. Importantly, survival free from stroke or device exchange was higher in patients supported with HM3 compared with either the HM2 or the HW LVADs [hazard ratio (HR) 2.77, confidence interval (CI) 1.13-6.78; P = 0.026 and HR 2.70, CI 1.01-7.20; P = 0.047, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: HM3 device currently presents better prognostic and adverse events profiles when compared with the HM2 or the HW LVADs. A larger-scale head-to-head comparison between the devices is warranted in order to confirm our findings.