Key result
Cardiac papillary fibroelastomas are typically managed empirically with surgical resection for high-risk cases or anticoagulation for poor surgical candidates due to a lack of randomized trials.
This review outlines the diagnosis and empiric management of cardiac papillary fibroelastomas, emphasizing surgical resection for high-risk cases and the need for randomized trials.
Empiric resection or anticoagulation persists for papillary fibroelastomas; leaves open optimal strategies pending randomized trials.
Cardiac papillary fibroelastomas (PFEs) are the most common tumors of the cardiac valves and the third most common cardiac tumor. They are usually detected accidentally on echocardiography, but have the potential to manifest with catastrophic embolic phenomena, resulting in stroke and myocardial infarction. Echocardiography is currently the preferred diagnostic modality, while magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography are helpful in the differential diagnosis of cardiac tumors. The management of PFEs is empiric, as no large randomized trials have been conducted to support specific treatment guidelines. The treatment of choice for PFEs with high-risk features for peripheral embolization is surgical resection. Anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who refuse surgery, although its duration and intensity are debatable. This review summarizes current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of PFEs. It also highlights the need for large randomized clinical trials that would delineate more specific guidelines for managing PFEs with anticoagulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saloura et al. (2009) conducted a review in Cardiac papillary fibroelastomas. Cardiac papillary fibroelastomas are typically managed empirically with surgical resection for high-risk cases or anticoagulation for poor surgical candidates due to a lack of randomized trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: