Zhu Yuansong, Zhang Chengxiang, Xie Yuqiao, Sasmita Bryan Richard, Xiang Zhenxian, Jiang Yi, Gong Ming, Wang Yaxin, Chen Siyu, Luo Suxin, Huang Bi
Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
The First Clinical College, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Sep 21;9:1013979. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1013979. eCollection 2022.
This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis and to evaluate the safety of pericardiocentesis without discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.
We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing pericardiocentesis in our hospital between 2012 and 2022. Patients were categorized into the Antithrombotic Group if they had used any antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs on the day of pericardiocentesis; otherwise they were categorized into the Non-antithrombotic Group. All procedures were performed by experienced cardiologists with echocardiographic guidance. Bleeding events were defined using the National Institutes of Health scale of adverse events.
A total of 501 consecutive patients were identified and 70 cases were under antithrombotic drugs (Antithrombotic Group). Patients in Antithrombotic Group were older, had more comorbidities, presented with lower platelet counts and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (all < 0.05). Malignancy was the most common etiology for pericardial effusion in both groups (28.6% in Antithrombotic Group and 54.7% in Non-antithrombotic Group) and tuberculosis was the second etiology in the Non-antithrombotic Group (21.9%), while procedure-related effusion (17.1%) accounted for the second cause in the Antithrombotic Group. Two patients in the Antithrombotic Group had mild oozing at the puncture site that resolved without interventions (2.9 vs. 0%, = 0.019), and no bleeding events higher than Grade 1 occurred in either group.
Although antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs may put patients undergoing pericardiocentesis at theoretically higher risk of bleeding, our study demonstrated that they are not associated with increased major bleeding complications.
本研究旨在分析需要进行心包穿刺术的心包积液患者的特征,并评估在不停用抗凝药或抗血小板药物的情况下进行心包穿刺术的安全性。
我们对2012年至2022年在我院接受心包穿刺术的患者进行了一项回顾性研究。如果患者在心包穿刺术当天使用了任何抗血小板或抗凝药物,则将其分类为抗栓组;否则将其分类为非抗栓组。所有操作均在经验丰富的心脏病专家的超声心动图引导下进行。出血事件使用美国国立卫生研究院不良事件量表进行定义。
共识别出501例连续患者,其中70例使用了抗栓药物(抗栓组)。抗栓组患者年龄较大,合并症较多,血小板计数较低,活化部分凝血活酶时间延长(均P<0.05)。恶性肿瘤是两组心包积液最常见的病因(抗栓组为28.6%,非抗栓组为54.7%),结核病是非抗栓组的第二大病因(21.9%),而与操作相关的积液(17.1%)是抗栓组的第二大病因。抗栓组有2例患者穿刺部位有轻度渗血,未经干预自行缓解(2.9%对0%,P=0.019),两组均未发生高于1级的出血事件。
虽然抗血小板或抗凝药物可能使接受心包穿刺术的患者理论上出血风险更高,但我们的研究表明,它们与主要出血并发症增加无关。