Comparing Outcomes of CT-Guided Percutaneous Pericardial Drainage with Surgical Pericardial Window in Patients with Symptomatic Pericardial Effusions.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term outcomes of CT-guided percutaneous pericardial drainage (PPD) versus subxiphoid surgical pericardial window (PW) drainage and analyze the risk factors associated with their outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent either percutaneous drainage with drainage catheter placement or PW with surgical drain placement for symptomatic pericardial effusion between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2016 was performed after institutional review board approval (decision number 16-783). The primary objective was to test for associations between the short-term (≤30 days post procedure) complication and recurrence rates in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusions. The secondary objectives were to test for associations between short-term complications with changes in vital signs. RESULTS: Of the 257 procedures included in the final analysis, 142 were in the percutaneous drainage group. Short-term complication rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in patients undergoing PW, 17% (19/114), as compared with PPD, 2% (3/142). The estimated odds of having complications in the PW cohort was 9 times greater than the percutaneous drainage cohort (OR = 9.3, 95% CI: 2.7-32.3). No significant difference was observed between whether or not a patient experienced a short-term recurrence and any of the explanatory variables (patient demographics, imaging, and vital signs). CONCLUSION: CT-guided PPD is a safer alternative to surgical PW as it leads to fewer complications without a significant difference in recurrence rate of pericardial effusion.
