Use of an autologous blood recovery system during emergency pericardiocentesis in the electrophysiology laboratory.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency pericardiocentesis during electrophysiology procedures is often associated with significant aspiration of pericardial blood, requiring transfusion. We sought to assess the feasibility of urgent use of an autologous blood recovery system in the electrophysiology laboratory to autotransfuse blood aspirated from the pericardium. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed Mayo Clinic electrophysiology records for patients who had ablation procedure-related pericardial effusions requiring emergency pericardial drainage during an 8-month period. An autologous blood recovery system was used during pericardiocentesis to separate and clean packed red blood cells from the pericardial aspirate. These cells were returned acutely to the patient intravenously. The procedural safety, aspirated and autotransfused volumes, and efficacy of this approach were evaluated. During the study period, nine patients underwent pericardial drainage with autotransfusion using a cell-salvage instrument during electrophysiology procedures. The mean aspirated volume was 1,078 mL, with a mean autotransfused volume of 390 mL. For four patients, all with aspirated volumes of 1,100 mL or less, autotransfusion alone was sufficient to maintain hemodynamic stability and avoid allogeneic transfusion. One patient required surgical intervention because of ongoing pericardial bleeding. The ablation procedure was completed after aspiration in two patients. No procedural complications related to the use of the cell-salvage system occurred. CONCLUSION: Autologous blood recovery during pericardiocentesis is safe, convenient, and feasible. With early use it may decrease or eliminate the need for allogeneic blood transfusion and, in selected cases, may permit completion of the ablation procedure.

Burden of Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients With Anthracycline-Related Cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and device (internal cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) therapies in patients with a diagnosis of cardiomyopathy and anthracycline exposure. BACKGROUND: The burden of arrhythmias in adult cancer survivors with anthracycline-related cardiomyopathy has not been studied, but might have important implications for clinical management and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) who underwent internal cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation at the Mayo Clinic from 1990 to 2012. Ninety-five patients were cancer survivors (on average, 5 years), 23 of which had anthracycline-related cardiomyopathy (CA-ACM) and 72 of which had non-anthracycline-related cardiomyopathy (CA-NACM). A second control group of 68 noncancer patients with ischemic heart disease-related LVD or dilated cardiomyopathy (ischemic heart disease [IHD]/DCM) was age- and gender-matched to patients with CA-ACM. All patients were followed for arrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies, total mortality, heart transplantation, and left ventricular ejection fraction. RESULTS: More than 5.5 ± 3.0 years after device implantation, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia was the most common arrhythmia in patients with CA-ACM followed by atrial fibrillation and sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (73.9%, 56.6%, and 30.4%, respectively), which was not significantly different from CA-NACM and IHD/DCM. The 5-year rate of ICD therapies was 19.9% in the CA-ACM group versus 22.1% in the CA-NACM group and 32.6% in the IHD/DCM group (p = NS for both). Device therapy-free, heart transplantation-free, and/or overall survival as well as cardiac function dynamics over time were not different in patients with CA-ACM than in patients with CA-NACM and IHD/DCM. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the burden of arrhythmia in patients with anthracycline-related cardiomyopathy is not different from cancer and non-cancer patients with IHD-related LVD or DCM.

Dysrhythmias and the athlete.

Young competitive athletes are perceived by the general population to be the healthiest members of society. The possibility that highly trained high school and college athletes may have a potentially serious cardiac condition that can predispose to life-threatening dysrhythmias or sudden cardiac death (SCD) seems paradoxical. The occurrence of SCD in young athletes from dysrhythmias is an uncommon but highly visible event. Media reports of sudden death in athletes have intensified the public and medical interest in medical, ethical, and legal issues related to cardiac disorders in the athlete. Developing screening strategies to identify conditions associated with sudden death has been the focus of attention of experts in the fields of arrhythmology and sports medicine and has resulted in Consensus Statements and Guidelines for evaluation of athletes. These guidelines provide information and recommendations for detection, evaluation, and management of athletes with cardiovascular disorders and criteria for eligibility and disqualification from participation in high-intensity and competitive sports. Differentiating normal exercise-induced physiologic changes in the heart from pathological conditions associated with sudden death is critical for developing screening strategies to identify athletes at high risk. This article discusses a case report of sudden cardiac death in an athlete followed by a brief review of various causes of cardiac dysrhythmias in young athletes and recommendations for screening and management of athletes with cardiovascular diseases.