Department of Cardiology, Yuzuncu Yil University, 65100 Van, Turkey.
Cardiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:197838. doi: 10.4061/2011/197838. Epub 2011 Sep 20.
Background. Cardiac tamponade (CT) represents a life-threatening condition, and the optimal method of draining accumulated pericardial fluid remains controversial. We have reviewed 100 patients with CT at our institution over a five-year period and compared the results of echo-guided pericardiocentesis, primary surgical treatment, and surgical treatment following pericardiocentesis with regard to functional outcomes. Methods. The study group consisted of 100 patients with CT attending Yuzuncu Yil University from January 2005 to January 2010 who underwent one of the 3 treatment options (echo-guided pericardiocentesis, primary surgical treatment, and surgical treatment following pericardiocentesis). CT was defined by clinical and echocardiographic criteria. Data on medical history, characteristics of the pericardial fluid, treatment strategy, and follow-up data were collected. Results. Echo-guided pericardiocentesis was performed in 38 (38%) patients (Group A), primary surgical treatment was preformed in 36 (36%) patients (Group B), and surgical treatment following pericardiocentesis was performed in 26 (26%) patients (Group C). Idiopathic and malignant diseases were primary cause of tamponade (28% and 28%, resp.), followed by tuberculosis (14%). Total complication rates, 30-day mortality, and total mortality rates were highest in Group C. Recurrence of tamponade before 90 days was highest in Group A. Conclusions. According to our results, minimal invasive procedure echo-guided pericardiocentesis should be the first choice because of lower complication and mortality rates especially in idiopathic cases and in patients with hemodynamic instability. Surgical approach might be performed for traumatic cases, purulent, recurrent, or malign effusions with higher complication and mortality rates.
心脏压塞(CT)是一种危及生命的疾病,而积聚的心包液的最佳引流方法仍存在争议。我们回顾了我院 5 年内 100 例 CT 患者,并比较了超声引导下心包穿刺术、原发性外科治疗以及心包穿刺术后外科治疗在功能结果方面的差异。
该研究组由 2005 年 1 月至 2010 年 1 月期间在尤兹根大学接受治疗的 100 例 CT 患者组成,他们接受了 3 种治疗选择之一(超声引导下心包穿刺术、原发性外科治疗以及心包穿刺术后外科治疗)。CT 通过临床和超声心动图标准定义。收集了病史、心包液特征、治疗策略和随访数据。
38 例(38%)患者行超声引导下心包穿刺术(A 组),36 例(36%)患者行原发性外科治疗(B 组),26 例(26%)患者行心包穿刺术后外科治疗(C 组)。特发性和恶性疾病是压塞的主要原因(分别为 28%和 28%),其次是结核病(14%)。C 组总并发症率、30 天死亡率和总死亡率最高。A 组在 90 天内复发性压塞的发生率最高。
根据我们的结果,微创程序超声引导下心包穿刺术应该是首选方法,因为它的并发症和死亡率较低,特别是在特发性病例和血流动力学不稳定的患者中。对于创伤性病例、化脓性、复发性或恶性积液,外科方法可能会有更高的并发症和死亡率。