Korean Circ J.  2022 Jan;52(1):74-83. 10.4070/kcj.2021.0217.

Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Cancer Patients who Developed Constrictive Physiology After Pericardiocentesis

• Park H
• Yoon HJ
• Lee N
• Kim JY
• Kim HY
• Cho JY
• Kim KH
• Ahn Y
• Jeong MH
• Cho JG

• KMID: 2524172
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2021.0217

Abstract

Background and objectives
This study aimed to identify the characteristics and clinical outcomes of cancer patients who developed constrictive physiology (CP) after percutaneous pericardiocentesis.
Methods
One-hundred thirty-three cancer patients who underwent pericardiocentesis were divided into 2 groups according to follow-up echocardiography (CP vs. non-CP). The clinical history, imaging findings, and laboratory results, and overall survival were compared.
Results
CP developed in 49 (36.8%) patients after pericardiocentesis. The CP group had a more frequent history of radiation therapy. Pericardial enhancement and malignant masses abutting the pericardium were more frequently observed in the CP group. Fever and ST segment elevation were more frequent in the CP group, with higher C-reactive protein levels (6.6±4.3mg/dL vs. 3.3±2.5mg/dL, p<0.001). Pericardial fluid leukocytes counts were significantly higher, and positive cytology was more frequent in the CP group. In baseline echocardiography before pericardiocentesis, medial e′ velocity was significantly higher in the CP group (8.6±2.1cm/s vs. 6.5±2.3cm/s, p<0.001), and respirophasic ventricular septal shift, prominent expiratory hepatic venous flow reversal, pericardial adhesion, and loculated pericardial fluid were also more frequent. The risk of all-cause death was significantly high in the CP group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval,1.10–2.13; p=0.005).
Conclusions
CP frequently develops after pericardiocentesis, and it is associated with poor survival in cancer patients. Several clinical signs, imaging, and laboratory findings suggestive of pericardial inflammation and/or direct malignant pericardial invasion are frequently observed and could be used as predictors of CP development.

Keyword

Pericardium; Echocardiography; Heart failure; Risk factors

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Overall survival according to CP.CP = constrictive physiology.

Reference

1. Sagristà-Sauleda J, Mercé J, Permanyer-Miralda G, Soler-Soler J. Clinical clues to the causes of large pericardial effusions. Am J Med. 2000; 109:95–101. PMID: 10967149.

2. Ma W, Liu J, Zeng Y, et al. Causes of moderate to large pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis in 140 Han Chinese patients. Herz. 2012; 37:183–187. PMID: 21301790.

3. Strobbe A, Adriaenssens T, Bennett J, et al. Etiology and long-term outcome of patients undergoing pericardiocentesis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6:e007598. PMID: 29275375.

4. Cho IJ, Chang HJ, Chung H, et al. Differential impact of constrictive physiology after pericardiocentesis in malignancy patients with pericardial effusion. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0145461. PMID: 26691279.

5. Gornik HL, Gerhard-Herman M, Beckman JA. Abnormal cytology predicts poor prognosis in cancer patients with pericardial effusion. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:5211–5216. PMID: 16051963.

6. El Haddad D, Iliescu C, Yusuf SW, et al. Outcomes of cancer patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66:1119–1128. PMID: 26337990.

7. Gross JL, Younes RN, Deheinzelin D, Diniz AL, Silva RA, Haddad FJ. Surgical management of symptomatic pericardial effusion in patients with solid malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13:1732–1738. PMID: 17028771.

8. Dequanter D, Lothaire P, Berghmans T, Sculier JP. Severe pericardial effusion in patients with concurrent malignancy: a retrospective analysis of prognostic factors influencing survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15:3268–3271. PMID: 18648881.

9. Cosyns B, Plein S, Nihoyanopoulos P, et al. European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) position paper: multimodality imaging in pericardial disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 16:12–31. PMID: 25248336.

10. Kim KH, Miranda WR, Sinak LJ, et al. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis after pericardiocentesis: incidence, associated findings, and natural history. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 11:534–541. PMID: 28917680.

11. Kim SR, Kim EK, Cho J, et al. Effect of anti-inflammatory drugs on clinical outcomes in patients with malignant pericardial effusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76:1551–1561. PMID: 32972532.

12. Sagristà-Sauleda J, Angel J, Sánchez A, Permanyer-Miralda G, Soler-Soler J. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:469–475. PMID: 14749455.

13. Ala CK, Klein AL, Moslehi JJ. Cancer treatment-associated pericardial disease: epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019; 21:156. PMID: 31768769.

14. Welch TD, Ling LH, Espinosa RE, et al. Echocardiographic diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis: Mayo Clinic criteria. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 7:526–534. PMID: 24633783.

15. Syed FF, Ntsekhe M, Mayosi BM, Oh JK. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. Heart Fail Rev. 2013; 18:277–287. PMID: 22422296.