Suppr超能文献

血心包的发生率和处理:介入心脏病学变化趋势的影响。

Incidence and Management of Hemopericardium: Impact of Changing Trends in Invasive Cardiology.

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

出版信息

Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 Aug;93(8):1086-1095. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.01.023.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

As invasive cardiovascular care has become increasingly complex, cardiac perforation leading to hemopericardium is a progressively prevalent complication. We sought to assess the frequency, etiology, and outcomes of hemorrhagic pericardial effusions managed through a nonsurgical echo-guided percutaneous strategy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a 10-year period (January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016), 1097 unique patients required pericardiocentesis for clinically important pericardial effusions. Of these 411 had drainage of hemorrhagic effusions (defined as a pericardial hemoglobin level >50% of serum hemoglobin or frank blood in the setting of cardiac perforation). Clinical characteristics, echocardiographic data, details of the procedure, and outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 67 years (interquartile range, 56-76 years), and 60% were men. The procedure was emergent in 83% and elective in 17%. The site of pericardiocentesis was determined by echo-guidance in all: 68% from the left para-apical region, 18% from the left or right parasternal areas, and 14% were subxyphoid. Half (n=215 [52%]) occurred after cardiac perforation with percutaneous interventional procedure (ablation, n=94; device lead implantation, n=65; percutaneous coronary intervention, n=22; other, n=34), whereas 30% followed cardiac or thoracic surgery. Pericardial fluid volume drained was 546±440 mL. In 94% of cases, echo-guided pericardiocentesis was the only treatment of the effusion needed, whereas definitive surgery was required in 25 (6%) cases for persistent bleeding or acute management of the underlying etiology. There was no procedural mortality. Late mortality was better for hemorrhagic effusions compared with a contemporary cohort with nonhemorrhagic effusions.

CONCLUSION

Echocardiographic guidance allows rapid successful pericardiocentesis in the setting of hemopericardium related to microperforation with interventional procedures, malignancy, or pericarditis, with most not requiring surgical intervention. Surgery should remain the first-line approach for aortic dissection or myocardial rupture.

摘要

目的

随着心血管介入治疗日益复杂,心脏穿孔导致血性心包积血是一种越来越普遍的并发症。我们旨在评估通过非手术超声引导下经皮策略治疗的出血性心包积血的发生率、病因和结局。

患者和方法

在 10 年期间(2007 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 12 月 31 日),1097 名患者因临床重要的心包积液需要进行心包穿刺术。其中 411 例引流出血性积液(定义为心包血红蛋白水平高于血清血红蛋白的 50%或心脏穿孔时出现明显血液)。确定了临床特征、超声心动图数据、手术细节和结局。

结果

患者中位年龄为 67 岁(四分位距,56-76 岁),60%为男性。83%的患者为紧急情况,17%为择期手术。所有患者均通过超声引导确定心包穿刺部位:68%来自左侧心尖旁区,18%来自左侧或右侧胸骨旁区,14%来自剑突下。半数(n=215 [52%])发生在心脏穿孔后经皮介入治疗(消融术,n=94;器械导线植入术,n=65;经皮冠状动脉介入术,n=22;其他,n=34)后,30%发生在心脏或胸部手术后。心包积液引流量为 546±440ml。在 94%的情况下,超声引导下心包穿刺术是治疗积液的唯一方法,而对于持续性出血或需要急性处理潜在病因的 25 例(6%)患者需要进行确定性手术。无手术相关死亡。与非出血性积液的同期队列相比,出血性积液患者的晚期死亡率更好。

结论

超声心动图引导下快速成功的心包穿刺术可用于治疗与介入治疗、恶性肿瘤或心包炎相关的微穿孔导致的心包积血,大多数情况下不需要手术干预。对于主动脉夹层或心肌破裂,手术仍应作为一线治疗方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验