Pericardiocentesis practice in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Pericardial effusions frequently present challenging clinical dilemmas. Whether or not to drain an effusion, and if so by what method, are two common decisions facing cardiologists. We performed a survey to evaluate pericardiocentesis practice in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A total of 640 questionnaires were sent to all cardiologists in the UK Directory of Cardiology in March 2003. RESULTS: A total of 274 (43%) completed questionnaires were returned, 88% from consultants, equally distributed between tertiary referral centres and district general hospitals. More than 1500 procedures were performed, largely using a paraxiphoid approach (89%). Clinical tamponade was the commonest indication for pericardiocentesis (83%). However, the majority of respondents (69%) considered echocardiographic features alone an indication for pericardiocentesis, even in the absence of clinical tamponade. The commonest perceived indications for drainage were right ventricular diastolic collapse and right atrial collapse (69% and 33% of respondents respectively). For guidance, 82% use echocardiography, either alone or with fluoroscopy or the electrocardiogram (ECG) injury trace. 11% employ fluoroscopy alone or with the ECG injury trace. The remaining 11% stated that they would use the ECG injury trace alone or use no guidance. Using the ECG injury trace alone is said by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines to offer an inadequate safeguard. Reported complications included ventricular puncture (n = 12, 0.8%) and hepatic damage (n = 4, 0.3%). CONCLUSION: Pericardiocentesis practice varies substantially in the UK. Many cardiologists would perform pericardiocentesis based on echocardiographic features alone. 11% of cardiologists use guidance that is considered inadequate by the ESC guidelines.

Echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis - the gold standard for the management of pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade.

BACKGROUND: The conventional surgical pericardiotomy and blind needle-puncture pericardiocentesis using a subxiphoid approach have been reported to have only moderate success rates and to be associated with unacceptably high rates of morbidity and mortality. More recently, echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis was reported to improve considerably the likelihood of success and the safety of this procedure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis in the authors' institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis at the Hamilton General Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, from June 1994 to December 1998. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent a total of 46 echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis procedures. The procedure was successful in 100% of attempts. Clinical complications occurred in two (5%) patients: one patient with known coagulopathy developed hemothorax and one patient developed purulent pericarditis several days after the procedure. There were no deaths, and no patient required urgent referral for surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis is safe and effective, and is the method of choice for therapeutic and diagnostic drainage of pericardial effusions. While echocardiographically guided pericardiocentesis was described originally at centres with large volumes of patients with clinically significant pericardial effusions and with extensive experience in using this technique, similar high success and low complication rates were attained at an institution with relatively low numbers of patients requiring pericardial drainage.

Pericardial drainage for pericardial tamponade: surgical management criteria.

Aim of this study is the review of our experience in 82 patients treated by pericardial drainage for cardiac tamponade, to assess the efficacy and safety of different techniques and the related indications. The causes of pericardial effusion were: malignancy in 8 patients (9.7%), post-cardiac surgery in 12 (14.6%), while the others patients were admitted at our Institution with no identified preoperative diagnosis. Thirty-eight patients (46%) underwent subxiphoid pericardial drainage and 44 (54%) were operated on by catheter pericardiocentesis. There were no perioperative deaths. Two patients, who initially underwent pericardiocentesis, needed urgent sternotomy: the first patient developed a severe hypotension and bradicardia related to a vagal reaction and the other one because of accidental right ventricle puncture. Our experience indicates that subxiphoid pericardiocentesis provides expeditious, effective and durable treatment, with low morbidity, in case of pericardial effusions related to all causes. We believe that echocardiography is a powerful tool in the diagnosis and management of pericardial effusion. We conclude that pericardiocentesis seems to be the procedure of choice for patients with pericardial tamponade requiring an emergency treatment.