Key result
Constrictive physiology development after pericardiocentesis in cancer patients was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.53).
Why the study?
The study aimed to identify the characteristics and clinical outcomes of cancer patients who developed constrictive physiology after percutaneous pericardiocentesis.
Does the development of constrictive physiology after pericardiocentesis reduce overall survival in cancer patients?
Cohort (n=133)
Yes
Does the development of constrictive physiology after pericardiocentesis reduce overall survival in cancer patients?
Constrictive physiology frequently develops after pericardiocentesis in cancer patients and is associated with significantly poorer overall survival.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May identify higher-risk cancer patients post-pericardiocentesis; leaves open causal mechanisms and need for prospective validation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the characteristics and clinical outcomes of cancer patients who developed constrictive physiology (CP) after percutaneous pericardiocentesis. METHODS: One-hundred thirty-three cancer patients who underwent pericardiocentesis were divided into 2 groups according to follow-up echocardiography (CP vs. non-CP). The clinical history, imaging findings, and laboratory results, and overall survival were compared. RESULTS: CP developed in 49 (36.8%) patients after pericardiocentesis. The CP group had a more frequent history of radiation therapy. Pericardial enhancement and malignant masses abutting the pericardium were more frequently observed in the CP group. Fever and ST segment elevation were more frequent in the CP group, with higher C-reactive protein levels (6.6±4.3mg/dL vs. 3.3±2.5mg/dL, p<0.001). Pericardial fluid leukocytes counts were significantly higher, and positive cytology was more frequent in the CP group. In baseline echocardiography before pericardiocentesis, medial e' velocity was significantly higher in the CP group (8.6±2.1cm/s vs. 6.5±2.3cm/s, p<0.001), and respirophasic ventricular septal shift, prominent expiratory hepatic venous flow reversal, pericardial adhesion, and loculated pericardial fluid were also more frequent. The risk of all-cause death was significantly high in the CP group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval,1.10-2.13; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CP frequently develops after pericardiocentesis, and it is associated with poor survival in cancer patients. Several clinical signs, imaging, and laboratory findings suggestive of pericardial inflammation and/or direct malignant pericardial invasion are frequently observed and could be used as predictors of CP development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Pericardial effusion in cancer patients (n=133). Constrictive physiology vs. No constrictive physiology was evaluated on All-cause death (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.13, p=0.005). Constrictive physiology development after pericardiocentesis in cancer patients was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.53).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: