BACKGROUND: Approximately 21% of patients with advanced malignancies have cardiac or pericardial involvement with tumor. Controversy exists regarding the optimal approach to the pericardial space when hemodynamic compromise due to effusions occurs. METHODS: A six-year retrospective review of 59 cancer patients with pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had subxiphoid pericardial window (SXPW) alone (Group A), 5 had pericardial catheter drainage (PCD) followed by a SXPW (Group B), 10 had PCD with sclerosis (Group C), 5 had PCD alone (Group D), 2 had PCD with pericardial-pleural window (Group E), and one had pericardial-peritoneal window (Group F). The method of procedure, complications, number of hospital and ICU days, cytological or pathologic evidence of malignancy, solid versus hematological tumors, and survival were analyzed. The median survival for those patients in group C was one month compared to 4 months for Group A and 6 months for Group B. Essentially, results were similar regardless of method performed with the exception that professional and hospital charges averaged $4830 for SXPW compared to $1625 for PCD. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial catheter drainage and sclerosis provides a viable option for the treatment of pericardial effusions in selected cancer patients at markedly reduced cost and patient discomfort.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 21% of patients with advanced malignancies have cardiac or pericardial involvement with tumor. Controversy exists regarding the optimal approach to the pericardial space when hemodynamic compromise due to effusions occurs. METHODS: A six-year retrospective review of 59 cancerpatients with pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had subxiphoid pericardial window (SXPW) alone (Group A), 5 had pericardial catheter drainage (PCD) followed by a SXPW (Group B), 10 had PCD with sclerosis (Group C), 5 had PCD alone (Group D), 2 had PCD with pericardial-pleural window (Group E), and one had pericardial-peritoneal window (Group F). The method of procedure, complications, number of hospital and ICU days, cytological or pathologic evidence of malignancy, solid versus hematological tumors, and survival were analyzed. The median survival for those patients in group C was one month compared to 4 months for Group A and 6 months for Group B. Essentially, results were similar regardless of method performed with the exception that professional and hospital charges averaged $4830 for SXPW compared to $1625 for PCD. CONCLUSIONS: Pericardial catheter drainage and sclerosis provides a viable option for the treatment of pericardial effusions in selected cancerpatients at markedly reduced cost and patient discomfort.