Literature DB >> 19472002

Image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients.

Alda Tam1, Joe E Ensor, Holly Snyder, Sanjay Gupta, Jean-Bernard Durand, Michael J Wallace.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical experience with image-guided drainage of pericardial effusions in oncology patients. IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. From November 2002 to January 2008, 40 patients underwent 43 image-guided drainages of pericardial effusions. The medical records were reviewed to analyze the technical aspects of the procedures, complications, and clinical outcomes. Thirty-three pericardial drains were placed and 10 pericardiocenteses were performed. The technical success rate was 100%. Thirty-three procedures were performed under computed tomographic (CT) guidance, five under ultrasound (US) guidance, and five using both CT and US guidance. There were no technical, procedure-related complications. Delayed postprocedure complications and arrhythmias occurred in 11 cases, for an overall complication rate of 25.6%. All complications occurred in patients who had undergone drain placement. Nine patients developed new or worsening arrhythmias and six of these patients required transfer to a higher level of care or the initiation of pharmacological management. In 58.6% of drain placements, including 4 of 11 patients who developed complications, the catheter could have been removed earlier. The median overall survival was 6.47 months (95% CI: 2.37, 12.7). In conclusion, image-guided pericardial drain placement is safe and feasible. Due to the frequency of delayed postprocedure arrhythmias, follow-up monitoring in a telemetry unit is recommended. Prompt catheter removal after drainage may reduce the incidence of delayed post-catheter-insertion arrhythmias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19472002     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-009-9594-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  3 in total

Review 1.  Computed tomography-guided pericardiocentesis: a systematic review concerning contemporary evidence and future perspectives.

Authors:  Eduardo M Vilela; Catarina Ruivo; Claudio E Guerreiro; Marisa P Silva; Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes; Daniel Caeiro; Gustavo P Morais; João Primo; Pedro Braga; Nuno Ferreira; José Pedro L Nunes; Vasco Gama Ribeiro
Journal:  Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2018-08-15

Review 2.  Pericardial Disease Associated with Malignancy.

Authors:  Ryan Schusler; Shari L Meyerson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 3.  CT-Guided Pericardial Drainage: A Safe and Viable Alternative to Ultrasound-Guided Drainage.

Authors:  Ross B Ingber; Mustafa Al-Roubaie; Umairullah Lodhi; Craig Greben
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 1.780

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.