Balla Sujana, Zea-Vera Rodrigo, Kaplan Rachel A, Rosengart Todd K, Wall Matthew J, Ghanta Ravi K
Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
J Surg Res. 2020 Aug;252:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.014. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
The optimal surgical technique for drainage of pericardial effusions is frequently debated. Transpleural drainage via thoracotomy or thoracoscopy is hypothesized to provide more durable freedom from recurrent pericardial effusion than a subxiphoid pericardial window. We sought to compare operative outcomes and mid-term freedom from recurrent effusion between both approaches in patients with nontraumatic pericardial effusions.
All patients at our institution who underwent a pericardial window from 2001 to 2018 were identified. After excluding those who underwent recent cardiothoracic surgery or trauma, patients (n = 46) were stratified by surgical approach and presence of malignancy. Primary outcome was freedom from recurrent moderate or greater pericardial effusion. Secondary outcomes included operative mortality and morbidity and mid-term survival. Follow-up was determined by medical record review, with a follow-up of 67 patient-years. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare groups. Mid-term survival and freedom from effusion recurrence were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.
Subxiphoid windows (n = 31; 67%) were more frequently performed than transpleural windows (n = 15; 33%) and baseline characteristics were similar. Effusion etiologies included malignancy (n = 22; 48%), idiopathic (n = 12; 26%), uremia (n = 8; 17%), and collagen vascular disease (n = 4; 9%). Perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two surgical approaches, except for longer drain duration (7 versus 4 d, P = 0.029) in the subxiphoid group. Operative mortality was 19.6% overall and 36.4% in patients with malignancy. Mid-term survival and freedom from moderate or greater pericardial effusion recurrence was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19%-54%) and 69% (95% CI: 52%-86%) at 5 y, respectively. There was no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.90) or freedom from pericardial effusion recurrence (P = 0.70) between surgical approaches. Although malignant etiology had worse late survival (P < 0.01), freedom from effusion recurrence was similar to nonmalignant etiology (P = 0.70).
Pericardial window provides effective mid-term relief of pericardial effusion. Subxiphoid and transpleural windows are equivalent in mid-term efficacy and both surgical approaches can be considered. Patients with malignancy have acceptable operative mortality with low incidence of recurrent effusion, supporting palliative indications.
心包积液引流的最佳手术技术一直存在诸多争议。经胸廓切开术或胸腔镜进行经胸膜引流,相较于剑突下心包开窗术,被认为能更持久地避免心包积液复发。我们旨在比较非创伤性心包积液患者两种手术方式的手术效果及中期无复发性积液情况。
确定我院2001年至2018年期间接受心包开窗术的所有患者。排除近期接受心胸外科手术或创伤患者后,根据手术方式和是否存在恶性肿瘤对患者(n = 46)进行分层。主要结局为无中度或更大量心包积液复发。次要结局包括手术死亡率、发病率及中期生存率。通过病历审查确定随访情况,随访时间共67患者年。采用Fisher精确检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验比较组间差异。使用Kaplan-Meier法确定中期生存率和无积液复发情况。
剑突下心包开窗术(n = 31;67%)比经胸膜开窗术(n = 15;33%)更常施行,且基线特征相似。积液病因包括恶性肿瘤(n = 22;48%)、特发性(n = 12;26%)、尿毒症(n = 8;17%)和胶原血管病(n = 4;9%)。两种手术方式的围手术期结局相当,但剑突下组引流时间更长(7天对4天,P = 0.029)。总体手术死亡率为19.6%,恶性肿瘤患者为36.4%。5年时中期生存率和无中度或更大量心包积液复发率分别为37%(95%置信区间[CI]:19% - 54%)和69%(95% CI:52% - 86%)。两种手术方式在中期生存率(P = 0.90)或无心包积液复发率(P = 0.70)方面无差异。尽管恶性病因患者后期生存率较差(P < 0.01),但其无积液复发情况与非恶性病因相似(P = 0.70)。
心包开窗术能有效缓解心包积液的中期症状。剑突下和经胸膜开窗术在中期疗效上相当,两种手术方式均可考虑。恶性肿瘤患者手术死亡率可接受,积液复发率低,支持姑息治疗指征。