McDonald Jerome M, Meyers Bryan F, Guthrie Tracey J, Battafarano Richard J, Cooper Joel D, Patterson G Alexander
Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110-1013, USA.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Sep;76(3):811-5; discussion 816. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(03)00665-9.
The optimal therapy for symptomatic pericardial effusions remains controversial. This paper compares outcomes after the two most commonly used techniques, percutaneous catheter drainage and operative subxiphoid pericardial drainage.
We performed a 5-year retrospective, single-institution study to analyze outcomes after either percutaneous catheter drainage or subxiphoid open pericardial drainage for symptomatic pericardial effusions.
Symptomatic pericardial effusions in 246 patients were treated by open pericardiotomy and tube drainage (n = 150) or percutaneous catheter drainage (n = 96). Drainage duration, total drainage volume, and duration of follow-up (2.6 years) were similar in both groups. Effusions were classified malignant in 79 (32%) patients and benign in 167 (68%) patients. No direct procedural mortality occurred, but the hospital mortality was 16 patients (10.7%) in the open group and 22 (22.9%) in the percutaneous group (p = 0.01) The 5-year survival rate was 51% in the open group versus 45% in the percutaneous group, despite a greater percentage of the open group having a preoperative malignant diagnosis (35% versus 28%). Symptomatic effusions recurred in 16.5% of the percutaneous group compared with 4.6% in the open group (p = 0.002), and sclerosis did not appear to reduce recurrence rates (10.7% with sclerosis versus 15.6% without; p > 0.05). The diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 16 of 27 (59%) percutaneous procedures performed on patients with known malignancy. In the open group, cytologic and pathologic evaluation of the pericardial specimen revealed malignancy in 32 of 52 (62%) patients with known malignancy.
Subxiphoid and percutaneous pericardial drainage of symptomatic pericardial effusions can be performed safely; however, death occurs from underlying disease. Open subxiphoid pericardial drainage with pericardial biopsy appears to decrease recurrence but does not improve diagnostic accuracy of malignancy over cytology alone.
有症状心包积液的最佳治疗方法仍存在争议。本文比较了两种最常用技术,即经皮导管引流术和剑突下心包引流术的治疗效果。
我们进行了一项为期5年的回顾性单机构研究,以分析经皮导管引流术或剑突下开放式心包引流术治疗有症状心包积液后的效果。
246例有症状心包积液患者接受了心包切开术并置管引流(n = 150)或经皮导管引流(n = 96)。两组的引流持续时间、总引流量和随访时间(2.6年)相似。积液在79例(32%)患者中被分类为恶性,在167例(68%)患者中为良性。未发生直接手术死亡,但开放组的医院死亡率为16例(10.7%),经皮组为22例(22.9%)(p = 0.01)。开放组的5年生存率为51%,经皮组为45%,尽管开放组术前恶性诊断的比例更高(35%对28%)。经皮组有症状积液复发率为16.5%,开放组为4.6%(p = 0.002),硬化治疗似乎并未降低复发率(硬化治疗组为10.7%,未治疗组为15.6%;p > 0.05)。在已知患有恶性肿瘤的患者中进行的27例经皮手术中,有16例(59%)确诊为恶性肿瘤。在开放组中,心包标本的细胞学和病理学评估显示,在已知患有恶性肿瘤的52例患者中有32例(62%)为恶性肿瘤。
剑突下和经皮心包引流术治疗有症状心包积液可安全进行;然而,死亡是由基础疾病导致的。剑突下开放式心包引流术加心包活检似乎可降低复发率,但与单独细胞学检查相比,并未提高恶性肿瘤的诊断准确性。