Key result
Radical pericardiectomy linked to ~24% higher 20-year survival vs conventional pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis.
Why the study?
The extent of pericardiectomy is important in constrictive pericarditis, but its impact on long-term outcomes has been rarely reported.
Does radical pericardiectomy improve long-term survival and clinical outcomes compared to conventional pericardiectomy in patients with constrictive pericarditis?
Cohort (n=90)
No
Does radical pericardiectomy improve long-term survival and clinical outcomes compared to conventional pericardiectomy in patients with constrictive pericarditis?
Hazard Ratio: 6.181 (95% CI 1.042–36.656)
Absolute Event Rate: 74.7% vs 50.4%
p-value: p=0.045
Radical pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis is associated with better long-term survival, greater NYHA class recovery, and improved echocardiographic parameters compared to conventional pericardiectomy.
Radical pericardiectomy was associated with better survival and hemodynamics; leaves open whether extent of resection should change practice pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: The extent of pericardiectomy is an important issue in constrictive pericarditis but its impact on long-term outcomes has been rarely reported. We compared long-term results of radical pericardiectomy with conventional phrenic to phrenic pericardiectomy. METHODS: Ninety patients who underwent pericardiectomies between February 1995 and April 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. They were classified into conventional (n = 37) and radical (n = 53) groups according to pericardiectomy being performed anterior or posterior to the phrenic nerves, respectively. The follow-up duration at outpatient clinic was 37.6 (11.7, 86.6) months and the survival data until 91.6 (54.5, 147.0) months were obtained. The last echocardiographies were done at 22.4 (4.35, 60.85) months. RESULTS: The early mortality rate was 4.4% (4/90). They all belonged to the conventional group and died of low cardiac output syndrome. The survival rate was higher in the radical group (P = .032, 74.7 ± 9.2% versus 50.4 ± 11.9% in 20 years). NYHA class of both groups had recovered until the last follow-up but the radical group showed better recovery (P < .001). The conventional pericardiectomy (HR = 6.181; 95% CI (1.042, 36.656)), redosternotomy (HR = 6.441; 95% CI (1.224, 33.889) and preoperative grade of tricuspid regurgitation (HR = 15.003; 95% CI (1.099, 204.894) were associated with late mortality. Right ventricular systolic pressure decreased, and pericardial thickening resolved only in the radical group with significant intergroup differences as time went on. Tricuspid regurgitation worsened after the operation in both groups, but it deteriorated more in the conventional group. However, it improved over time in the radical group. CONCLUSIONS: Radical pericardiectomy led to greater improvement in right ventricular systolic pressure and lesser deterioration of tricuspid regurgitation with the passage of time than did the conventional procedure. Conventional pericardiectomy and preoperative higher grade tricuspid regurgitation were associated with long-term mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Constrictive pericarditis (n=90). Radical pericardiectomy vs. Conventional phrenic to phrenic pericardiectomy was evaluated on Long-term survival rate (20 years) (HR 6.181, 95% CI 1.042-36.656, p=0.045). Radical pericardiectomy significantly improved the 20-year survival rate to 74.7% compared to 50.4% with conventional pericardiectomy in patients with constrictive pericarditis.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: