BACKGROUND: Septic shock is common, with approximately 200,000 cases recognized annually. This syndrome is so well characterized that when a patient is febrile and in shock, septic shock may be diagnosed without regard to alternative possibilities. Purulent pericarditis is a relatively rare disorder in which fever and hypotension are common. Classic signs and symptoms, such as chest pain, pericardial friction rub, pulsus paradoxus, and elevation of jugular venous pressure, are seen in only 50%. METHODS: In this report, we describe four patients in whom purulent pericarditis and pericardial tamponade was initially misdiagnosed as septic shock. During a 3-month period, three men and one woman (mean age, 44.5 years) came to Kern Medical Center with purulent pericarditis and pericardial tamponade. These cases represented 13% of patients admitted with a diagnosis of septic shock. RESULTS: All patients were bacteremic, and the classic findings of pericardial tamponade were absent or relatively subtle. Hemodynamic findings of elevated systemic vascular resistance, low cardiac output, and normal pulmonary artery occlusion pressure were critical to the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of purulent pericarditis is important in cases diagnosed as septic shock. Clinicians should be aware that patients with purulent pericarditis may not exhibit classic signs and symptoms, and a high index of suspicion is necessary for appropriate management.
BACKGROUND:Septic shock is common, with approximately 200,000 cases recognized annually. This syndrome is so well characterized that when a patient is febrile and in shock, septic shock may be diagnosed without regard to alternative possibilities. Purulent pericarditis is a relatively rare disorder in which fever and hypotension are common. Classic signs and symptoms, such as chest pain, pericardial friction rub, pulsus paradoxus, and elevation of jugular venous pressure, are seen in only 50%. METHODS: In this report, we describe four patients in whom purulent pericarditis and pericardial tamponade was initially misdiagnosed as septic shock. During a 3-month period, three men and one woman (mean age, 44.5 years) came to Kern Medical Center with purulent pericarditis and pericardial tamponade. These cases represented 13% of patients admitted with a diagnosis of septic shock. RESULTS: All patients were bacteremic, and the classic findings of pericardial tamponade were absent or relatively subtle. Hemodynamic findings of elevated systemic vascular resistance, low cardiac output, and normal pulmonary artery occlusion pressure were critical to the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of purulent pericarditis is important in cases diagnosed as septic shock. Clinicians should be aware that patients with purulent pericarditis may not exhibit classic signs and symptoms, and a high index of suspicion is necessary for appropriate management.