OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of pulse index contour continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring in patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy remains unclear. The goal of this study was to explore whether PiCCO monitoring could improve clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 74 patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy and assigned them to a PiCCO group and a control group. Postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were 33 (44.6%) cases in the PiCCO group and 41 (55.4%) cases in the control group. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. In comparison to the control group, the PiCCO group showed more intraoperative fluid infusion (P = 0.003), higher postoperative central venous pressure (P = 0.007) and lower levels of postoperative brain natriuretic peptide (P = 0.021). The incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.004) including cardiac complications (P = 0.033) was also lower in the PiCCO group. Despite no difference in survival outcomes, duration of chest drainage (P = 0.032), length of stay in the intensive care unit (P < 0.001) and the postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.044) were significantly shorter in the PiCCO group. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the clinical significance of PiCCO monitoring in the enhanced recovery of patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy and provided new evidence for applying PiCCO monitoring in these patients.
OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of pulse index contour continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring in patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy remains unclear. The goal of this study was to explore whether PiCCO monitoring could improve clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 74 patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy and assigned them to a PiCCO group and a control group. Postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were 33 (44.6%) cases in the PiCCO group and 41 (55.4%) cases in the control group. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. In comparison to the control group, the PiCCO group showed more intraoperative fluid infusion (P = 0.003), higher postoperative central venous pressure (P = 0.007) and lower levels of postoperative brain natriuretic peptide (P = 0.021). The incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.004) including cardiac complications (P = 0.033) was also lower in the PiCCO group. Despite no difference in survival outcomes, duration of chest drainage (P = 0.032), length of stay in the intensive care unit (P < 0.001) and the postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.044) were significantly shorter in the PiCCO group. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the clinical significance of PiCCO monitoring in the enhanced recovery of patients with constrictive pericarditis undergoing pericardiectomy and provided new evidence for applying PiCCO monitoring in these patients.