Cardiac Tamponade and Pericardiocentesis: Recognition, Standard Techniques, and Modern Advancements.

Pericardiocentesis is an important diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. In the setting of cardiac tamponade, pericardiocentesis can rapidly improve hemodynamics, and in cases of diagnostic uncertainty, pericardiocentesis allows for fluid analysis to aid in diagnosis. In contemporary practice, the widespread availability of ultrasonography has made echocardiographic guidance the standard of care. Additional tools such as micropuncture technique, live ultrasonographic guidance, and adjunctive tools including fluoroscopy continue to advance and enhance procedural efficiency and safety. When performed by experienced operators, pericardiocentesis is a safe, effective, and potentially life-saving procedure.

Use of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping for epicardial access: needle tracking, electrographic characteristics, and clinical application.

AIMS: Pericardiocentesis is usually completed under fluoroscopy. The electroanatomic mapping (EAM) system allows visualizing puncture needle tip (NT) while displaying the electrogram recorded from NT, making it possible to obtain epicardial access (EA) independent of fluoroscopy. This study was designed to establish and validate a technique by which EA is obtained under guidance of three-dimensional (3D) EAM combined with NT electrogram. METHODS AND RESULTS: 3D shell of the heart was generated, and the NT was made trackable in the EAM system. Unipolar NT electrogram was continuously monitored. Penetration into pericardial sac was determined by an increase in NT potential amplitude and an injury current. A long guidewire of which the tip was also visible in the EAM system was advanced to confirm EA. Epicardial access was successfully obtained without complication in 13 pigs and 22 patients. In the animals, NT potential amplitude was 3.2 ± 1.0 mV when it was located in mediastinum, 5.2 ± 1.6 mV when in contact with fibrous pericardium, and 9.8 ± 2.8 mV after penetrating into pericardial sac (all P ≤ 0.001). In human subjects, it measured 1.54 ± 0.40 mV, 3.61 ± 1.08 mV, and 7.15 ± 2.88 mV, respectively (all P < 0.001). Fluoroscopy time decreased in every 4-5 cases (64 ± 15, 23 ± 17, and 0 s for animals 1-4, 5-8, 9-13, respectively, P = 0.01; 44 ± 23, 31 ± 18, 4±7 s for patients 1-7, 8-14, 15-22, respectively, P < 0.001). In five pigs and seven patients, EA was obtained without X-ray exposure. CONCLUSION: By tracking NT in the 3D EAM system and continuously monitoring the NT electrogram, it is feasible and safe to obtain EA with minimum or no fluoroscopic guidance.

Pericardial Effusion in Association With Periodontitis: Case Report and Review of 8 Patients in Literature.

Periodontal diseases are well-known background for infective endocarditis. Here, we show that pericardial effusion or pericarditis might have origin also in periodontal diseases. An 86-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension and diabetes mellitus developed asymptomatic increase in pericardial effusion. Two weeks previously, he took oral new quinolone antibiotics for a week because he had painful periodontitis along a dental bridge in the mandibular teeth on the right side and presented cheek swelling. The sputum was positive for Streptococcus species. He was healthy and had a small volume of pericardial effusion for the previous 5 years after drug-eluting coronary stents were inserted at the left anterior descending branch 10 years previously. The differential diagnoses listed for pericardial effusion were infection including tuberculosis, autoimmune diseases, and metastatic malignancy. Thoracic to pelvic computed tomographic scan demonstrated no mass lesions, except for pericardial effusion and a small volume of pleural effusion on the left side. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography disclosed many spotty uptakes in the pericardial effusion. The patient denied pericardiocentesis, based on his evaluation of the risk of the procedure. He was thus discharged in several days and followed at outpatient clinic. He underwent dental treatment and pericardial effusion resolved completely in a month. He was healthy in 6 years until the last follow-up at the age of 92 years. We also reviewed 8 patients with pericarditis in association with periodontal diseases in the literature to reveal that periodontal diseases would be the background for developing infective pericarditis and also mediastinitis on some occasions.

Pericardiocentesis for COVID-19 Associated Cardiac Tamponade Using a Central Venous Catheter in Rural Australia: A Case Report.

Pericardiocentesis is a high-acuity, low-occurrence procedure rarely performed by emergency and retrieval clinicians. We present a case of cardiac tamponade secondary to coronavirus disease 2019 managed with prehospital pericardiocentesis in remote Australia, 800 km from the nearest hospital. This was performed using a quadruple-lumen central venous catheter. The procedure significantly improved the patient's clinical state, enabling a safe transfer via fixed wing aircraft to a tertiary center. In this report, we highlight that the ability to diagnose cardiac tamponade in coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients and perform pericardiocentesis under point-of-care ultrasound guidance can be lifesaving.

A Transesophageal Cardiovascular Intervention.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transesophageal pericardiocentesis was performed for a posteriorly located effusion not amenable to transthoracic drainage in a 58-year-old woman with a history of recurrent breast adenocarcinoma who presented with dyspnea. The patient had a pericardial effusion that resulted in cardiac tamponade. Transthoracic pericardiocentesis was unsuitable because of the posterior location of the effusion. Pericardiocentesis via the transesophageal route was performed. The pericardial sac was punctured with a 19-gauge needle, and 245 mL of pericardial fluid were aspirated, resulting in the resolution of the tamponade physiology. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transesophageal drainage is a novel and promising therapeutic option for posteriorly located pericardial effusions.

Computed Tomography-Guided Pericardiocentesis: A Practical Guide.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to serve as a practical guide to computed tomography (CT)-guided pericardiocentesis and to discuss the role of this approach in current clinical practice. An overview of indications, technique, advantages, and limitations specific to CT-guided pericardiocentesis will be provided. The reader will have an enhanced understanding of the use of this imaging modality to guide pericardial drainage. RECENT FINDINGS: Use of CT guidance to drain the pericardial space is safe, especially when adequate echocardiographic evaluation is precluded and when echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis is deemed unsafe and or not feasible. Our review and experience indicate that CT-guided pericardiocentesis is technically successful in more than 94% of patients, with a low risk (<1%) of significant complications. CT-guided pericardiocentesis is therefore a viable alternative when echocardiographic guidance is insufficient and can obviate the need for surgery in most patients.

Pericardial Effusion and Cardiac Tamponade Pathophysiology and New Approaches to Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The objective of this manuscript is to examine up-to-date approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of pericardial effusions and cardiac tamponade. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Society of Cardiology have improved our management of the patient with pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade, but significant knowledge gaps remain. Novel diagnostic and triage strategies have been suggested, and recent information have improved our facility to assess the presence and size of a pericardial effusion, assess its hemodynamic impact, and determine its cause. Despite these recent findings, there is a scarcity of evidence-based data to direct the management of pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade. While the first-line function of echocardiography in managing these disorders is undisputed, there are increasingly niche functions for multimodality imaging.

Cardiac tamponade.

Cardiac tamponade is a medical emergency caused by the progressive accumulation of pericardial fluid (effusion), blood, pus or air in the pericardium, compressing the heart chambers and leading to haemodynamic compromise, circulatory shock, cardiac arrest and death. Pericardial diseases of any aetiology as well as complications of interventional and surgical procedures or chest trauma can cause cardiac tamponade. Tamponade can be precipitated in patients with pericardial effusion by dehydration or exposure to certain medications, particularly vasodilators or intravenous diuretics. Key clinical findings in patients with cardiac tamponade are hypotension, increased jugular venous pressure and distant heart sounds (Beck triad). Dyspnoea can progress to orthopnoea (with no rales on lung auscultation) accompanied by weakness, fatigue, tachycardia and oliguria. In tamponade caused by acute pericarditis, the patient can experience fever and typical chest pain increasing on inspiration and radiating to the trapezius ridge. Generally, cardiac tamponade is a clinical diagnosis that can be confirmed using various imaging modalities, principally echocardiography. Cardiac tamponade is preferably resolved by echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis. In patients who have recently undergone cardiac surgery and in those with neoplastic infiltration, effusive-constrictive pericarditis, or loculated effusions, fluoroscopic guidance can increase the feasibility and safety of the procedure. Surgical management is indicated in patients with aortic dissection, chest trauma, bleeding or purulent infection that cannot be controlled percutaneously. After pericardiocentesis or pericardiotomy, NSAIDs and colchicine can be considered to prevent recurrence and effusive-constrictive pericarditis.

Ultrasound-guided diagnostic pericardiocentesis in preterm infants: a case report.

Pericardial effusion (PE) in pediatric population can be asymptomatic or a life-threatening event. Reports on neonates or preterm infants are scarce and generally related to pericardiocentesis of large amounts of PE in emergency situations.We describe a diagnostic pericardiocentesis in a preterm infant with small and loculated pericardial effusion and suspected cardiac mass. We used an ultrasound-guided long-axis in-plane pericardiocentesis technique, with a needle-cannula. The operator obtained a subxiphoid pericardial effusion view with a high frequency linear probe and entered the skin below the tip of the xiphoid process with a 20-gauge closed IV needle-cannula (ViaValve®). The needle was identified in its entirety as it courses through soft tissue up to pericardial sac. The main advantages of this approach are a continuous viewing and angulation of the needle through all planes of the tissue and the use of a small, practical, closed IV needle-cannula with blood control septum to prevent fluid exposure while disconnecting the syringe. This novel approach is easy and safe in neonatal population, for diagnostic or emergency drainages and can be performed at bedside in a neonatal intensive care unit.

Pericardial Fluid Analysis in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients Who Underwent Pericardiocentesis.

In this study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic yield of pericardial fluid biochemistry and cytology and their prognostic significance in patients with percutaneously drained pericardial effusions, with and without malignancy. This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis between 2010 and 2020. Data were extracted from electronic patient records, including procedural information, underlying diagnosis, and laboratory results. Patients were grouped into those with and without underlying malignancy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the association of variables with mortality. The study included 179 patients; 50% had an underlying malignancy. There were no significant differences in pericardial fluid protein and lactate dehydrogenase between the 2 groups. Diagnostic yield from pericardial fluid analysis was greater in the malignant group (32% vs 11%, p = 0.002); 72% of newly diagnosed malignancies had positive fluid cytology. The 1-year survival was 86% and 33% in nonmalignant and malignant groups, respectively (p <0.001). Of 17 patients who died within the nonmalignant group, idiopathic effusions were the largest group (n = 6). In malignancy, lower pericardial fluid protein and higher serum C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of mortality. In conclusion, pericardial fluid biochemistry has limited value in determining the etiology of pericardial effusions; fluid cytology is the most important diagnostic test. Mortality in malignant pericardial effusions may be associated with lower pericardial fluid protein levels and a higher serum C-reactive protein. Nonmalignant pericardial effusions do not have a benign prognosis and close follow-up is required.

Variations in current clinical practice of postoperative pericardial effusion: a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pericardial effusion (PPE) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery, potentially leading to life-threatening cardiac tamponade. Specific treatment guidelines are currently lacking, possibly leading to variations in clinical practice. Our goal was to assess clinical PPE management and evaluate variation between centres and clinicians. METHODS: A nationwide survey was sent to all interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons in the Netherlands, regarding their preferred diagnostic and treatment modality of PPE. Clinical preferences were explored utilising four patient scenarios, each with a high/low echocardiographic and clinical suspicion of cardiac tamponade. Scenarios were also stratified by three PPE sizes (<1 cm, 1-2 cm, >2 cm). RESULTS: In total, 46/140 interventional cardiologists and 48/120 cardiothoracic surgeons responded (27/31 contacted centres). Cardiologists favoured routine postoperative echocardiography in all patients (44%), whereas cardiothoracic surgeons preferred routine imaging after specific procedures, especially mitral (85%) and tricuspid (79%) valve surgery. Overall, pericardiocentesis (83%) was preferred over surgical evacuation (17%). Regarding all patient scenarios, cardiothoracic surgeons significantly preferred evacuation compared with cardiologists (51% vs 37%, p<0.001). This was also observed with cardiologists employed in surgical centres compared with non-surgical centres (43% vs 31%, p=0.02). Inter-rater analysis varied from poor to near-excellent (к 0.22-0.67), suggesting varying PPE treatment preferences within one centre. CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in the preferred management of PPE between hospitals and clinicians, even within the same centre, possibly due to the lack of specific guidelines. Therefore, robust results of a systematic approach to PPE diagnosis and treatment are needed to formulate evidence-based recommendations and optimise patient outcome.

Prevalence, characteristics and mortality of cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in the United States between 2004 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Pericardiocentesis is undertaken in patients with cancer for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, there are limited data on the frequency, characteristics and mortality of patients with different cancers undergoing pericardiocentesis. METHODS: All hospitalisations of adult cancer patients (≥18 years) in the US National Inpatient Sample between January 2004 and December 2017 were included. The cohort was stratified by discharge code of pericardiocentesis and cancer, using the International Classification of Diseases. The prevalence of pericardiocentesis, patient characteristics, cancer types and in-hospital all-cause mortality were analysed between cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis versus not. RESULTS: A total of 19,773,597 weighted cancer discharges were analysed, out of which 18,847 (0.1%) underwent pericardiocentesis. The most common cancer types amongst the patients receiving pericardiocentesis were lung (51.3%), haematological (15.9%), breast (5.4%), mediastinum/heart (3.2%), gastroesophageal (2.2%) and female genital cancer (1.8%), whilst 'other' cancer types were present in 20.2% patients. Patients undergoing pericardiocentesis had significantly higher mortality (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to their counterparts. The presence of metastatic disease (aOR 2.67 95% CI 1.79-3.97), weight loss (aOR 1.48 95% CI 1.33-1.65) and coagulopathy (aOR 3.22 95% CI 1.63-6.37) were each independently associated with higher mortality in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: Pericardiocentesis is an infrequent procedure in cancer patients and is most commonly performed in patients with lung, haematological and breast cancer. Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis have increased mortality, irrespective of the underlying cancer type.

Malignant pericardial effusions: A retrospective look at etiology and prognosis in a tertiary oncological center.

PURPOSE: Cancer and the associated treatments are important causes of pericardial effusion. However, the natural history of malignant pericardial effusion is largely unknown, especially in the context of newer cancer treatments. We investigated the causes of pericardial effusions in a tertiary oncology center, with particular focus on the prognosis of malignant effusions in the era of contemporary oncological therapies. METHOD: We obtained data from electronic medical records. Survival analyses were performed utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method. We performed Cox regression to explore the potential clinical factors associated with survival. RESULTS: Forty-four patients had pericardial effusion treated with pericardiocentesis during the study period. The mean age was 62-years, and 55% were female. Sixty-eight percent of these patients also had cancer, with approximately half (47%) receiving prior chemotherapy, and a quarter (27%) having had chest radiotherapy. Seventy percent of the patients with active cancer had malignant cells on cytology of pericardial fluid. The median survival of the cohort was 227 days, with malignant effusions having a median survival of 62-days compared to nonmalignant effusions with 1408 days (Logrank statistic 7.4, p-value .007). Malignant cytology was significantly associated with mortality on univariable analysis (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.3). Complication rates were low, with no deaths as a direct complication of pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: Malignancy is the most common cause of pericardial effusion in this tertiary medical and oncological center. Abnormal cytology with malignant cells has a poor median survival, despite advances in oncological treatment over the last decade. Pericardiocentesis is a safe procedure for these patients.

Management of pericardial tamponade in the electrophysiology laboratory: results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite continued efforts to improve the safety of catheter ablation, pericardial tamponade remains one of its more frequent, potentially life-threatening complications. Management of cardiac tamponade is not standardized and uncertainties regarding acute treatment remain. METHODS: This survey sought to evaluate the management of cardiac tamponade in German EP centers via a standardized postal questionnaire. All 341 identified German EP centers were invited to return a questionnaire on their standards for the management of cardiac tamponade. RESULTS: A total of 189 German EP centers completed the questionnaire. Several precautions are followed to avoid pericardial tamponade: A minority of centers preclude very old patients (19%) or those with a high body mass index (30%) from ablation. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are briefly paused in most centers (88%) before procedures, while vitamin K antagonists are continued. Pericardial tamponade is usually treated using reversal of heparin by applying protamine (86%) and pericardiocentesis under both, fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance (62%). A pigtail catheter is mostly inserted (97%) and autotransfusion of aspirated blood is performed in 47% of centers. The decision for surgical repair depends on different clinical and infrastructural aspects. The timing of reinitiation of anticoagulation widely differs between the centers. Approximately 1/3 of centers prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, colchicine or steroids after pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: The present survey shows that the management of cardiac tamponade is still inhomogeneous in German ablation centers. However, multiple findings of this survey can be generalized and might guide especially less experienced operators and centers in their treatment and decision strategies.

Precautions When Performing Pericardiocentesis in Patients with Cardiac Tamponade-complicated Malignancy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

A 51-year-old woman who had previously undergone left mastectomy for left breast cancer accompanied by multiple metastasis experienced worsening dyspnea. Physical and imaging assessments of the hemodynamics suggested cardiac tamponade, and emergency pericardiocentesis was successfully performed. However, immediately after the procedure, the patient's condition deteriorated rapidly and showed pulseless electrical activity. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography with continuous mechanical support demonstrated massive thrombi in both pulmonary arteries. An abrupt decrease in the central venous pressure and an increase in the venous return following pericardiocentesis might result in the migration of a deep venous thrombus and fatal acute pulmonary thromboembolism.

Unveiling the causes of pericardial effusion in a contemporary case series of pericardiocentesis in Latin America.

Pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis have multiple causes that vary among geographical regions and health contexts. This procedure can be performed for diagnostic or therapeutic indications. The purpose of this study was to identify the principal causes of pericardial effusions and indications for pericardiocentesis, exploring differences among groups. This was a retrospective case series of patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion in a single center in Latin America. Demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural variables were recorded and analyzed. The primary outcome was to determine the causes of pericardial effusions in these patients and the indication (diagnostic, therapeutic, or both). The results are presented in two groups (inflammatory and noninflammatory) according to the cause of the pericardial effusion. One hundred sixteen patients with pericardial effusion underwent pericardiocentesis. The median age was 58 years (IQR 46.2-70.7), and 50% were male. In the noninflammatory pericardial effusion group, there were 61 cases (53%), among which neoplastic pericardial effusion was the most frequent cause (n = 25, 40.9%). In the inflammatory group, there were 55 cases (47%), and the main cause was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery (n = 31, 56.4%). In conclusion, the principal indication for pericardiocentesis was therapeutic (n = 66, 56.8%). Large pericardial effusion without hemodynamic effect of cardiac tamponade was significantly more frequent in the inflammatory group (p = 0.03). The principal cause of pericardial effusion in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis was postpericardiectomy syndrome after cardiac surgery, followed by neoplastic pericardial effusion. Pericardiocentesis is mainly a therapeutic procedure.

Pericardial tamponade: A comprehensive emergency medicine and echocardiography review.

INTRODUCTION: Pericardial tamponade requires timely diagnosis and management. It carries a high mortality rate. OBJECTIVE: This review incorporates available evidence to clarify misconceptions regarding the clinical presentation, while providing an in-depth expert guide on bedside echocardiography. It also details the decision-making strategy for emergency management including pericardiocentesis, along with pre- and peri-procedural pearls and pitfalls. DISCUSSION: Pericardial effusions causing tamponade arise from diverse etiologies across acute and sub-acute time courses. The most frequently reported symptom is dyspnea. The classically taught Beck's triad (which includes hypotension) does not appear commonly. Echocardiographic findings include: a pericardial effusion (larger size associated with tamponade), diastolic right ventricular collapse (specific), systolic right atrial collapse (sensitive), a plethoric non-collapsible inferior vena cava (sensitive), and sonographic pulsus paradoxus. Emergent pericardiocentesis is warranted by hemodynamic instability, impending deterioration, or cardiac arrest. Emergent surgical indications include type A aortic dissection causing hemopericardium, ventricular free wall rupture after acute myocardial infarction, severe chest trauma, and iatrogenic hemopericardium when bleeding cannot be controlled percutaneously. Pre-procedure management includes blood products for patients with traumatic hemopericardium; gentle intravenous fluids to hypotensive, hypovolemic patients with consideration for vasoactive medications; treatment of anticoagulation, coagulopathies, and anemia. Positive-pressure ventilation and intravenous sedation can lower cardiac output and should be avoided if possible. Optimal location for echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis is the largest, shallowest fluid pocket with no intervening vital structures. Patient positioning to prevent hypoxia and liberal amounts of local anesthesia can facilitate patients remaining still. Safe needle guidance and confirmation of catheter placement is achieved using low-depth sonographic views, injection of agitated saline, and evaluation of initial aspirate for hemorrhage. Pericardial fluid should be drained slowly to avoid pericardial decompression syndrome. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, echocardiographic findings, and time-sensitive management of pericardial tamponade is essential for emergency physicians.

Demographic, clinical and etiological profile of pericardial effusion in India: A single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: Pericardial effusion (PE) is a life-threatening condition. However, there are very few Indian studies which determined etiological distribution. The current retrospective observational study was carried out to assess etiological factors responsible for PE in a tertiary care centre in India. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive 55 patients with the diagnosis of moderate to large PE as established by echocardiography between January 2018 and December 2018. The echocardiography guided percutaneous pericardiocentesis was performed by the standard procedure. RESULTS: Amongst the enrolled PE patients in the study, 30 (54.55%) were males and 25 (45.45%) were females, with the average age of 43.00 ± 15.54 years. In clinical assessment, tamponade was found in 52 (94.54%) patients. Tuberculosis was the most common etiology for PE (n=35, 63.64%) followed by hypothyroidism (n = 6, 10.9%), and malignancies (n = 4, 7.27%). Among 12.72% patients, the PE was of recurrent type. Additionally, no death or any complication was encountered during pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: Pericardial disease and effusion is a major cause of morbidity in India. Despite developments in the healthcare facilities, tuberculosis was the most common etiology for PE. Additionally, the raised number of hypothyroid and malignant PE cases demonstrates the changing etiological trends, similar to western countries.

Life-Threatening Cardiac Tamponade Secondary to COVID-19 Treated with Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 outbreak emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and mostly affects the respiratory system but can also affect other organs, including the cardiovascular system. Furthermore, the most common cardiac complications include severe left ventricular dysfunction, acute myocardial injury, and arrhythmias. Life-threatening cardiac tamponade and large pericardial effusion are exceedingly rare complications in patients recovered from COVID-19. Previously, this condition was treated with pericardiocentesis, colchicine, and corticosteroids. CASE REPORT We present the case of a 54-year-old man who recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection 7 days before presentation and describe a complicated pericardial effusion with life-threatening cardiac tamponade. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of pericardial effusion with cardiac tamponade that was successfully treated with single port or uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with an excellent outcome. CONCLUSIONS Life-threatening cardiac tamponade with pericardial effusion is an exceedingly rare complication in patients recovered from COVID-19. Generally, patients diagnosed with pericardial effusion undergo a pericardiocentesis procedure. Although there are multiple treatment options for draining pericardial effusion, the recurrence rate with surgical pericardial window formation is the lowest. However, our patient underwent surgery using a uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with an excellent outcome.

Feasibility and safety of CT-aided pericardiocentesis from a subxiphoid anterior approach by using fluoroscopy in patients with chronic pericardial effusions.

BACKGROUND: Pericardiocentesis is an essential procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pericardial effusions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a subxiphoid anterior approach using fluoroscopy aided by a sagittal axis chest computed tomography (CT) view in comparison with an ultrasound-guided apical approach in patients with chronic pericardial effusion. METHODS: Among 72 consecutive patients (68.8 ± 14.4 years old, 52 males) with hemodynamically stable chronic pericardial effusions, a total of 85 procedures were retrospectively analyzed. We divided them into two groups according to the site of the approach for the pericardiocentesis. RESULTS: A subxiphoid anterior approach (n = 53) was performed guided by fluoroscopy. The sagittal axis view of the chest CT was constructed to determine the puncture angle and direction for the subxiphoid anterior approach. An apical approach (n = 32) was performed by ultrasound guidance. The success rates of the anterior and apical approaches were 98.1% and 93.8%, respectively. There were two cases with cardiac perforations in the apical approach group, while no cases developed perforations in the subxiphoid anterior approach group. CONCLUSION: The subxiphoid anterior approach for pericardiocentesis was feasible and safe for managing chronic pericardial effusions. A reconstruction of the sagittal axis view of the chest CT imaging was helpful to identify the direction and depth to access the pericardial space from the subxiphoid puncture site before the pericardiocentesis using the lateral fluoroscopic view.