Khan Muhammad Zubair, Brailovsky Yevgeniy, Bhuiyan Mohammad Alfrad Nobel, Marhefka Gregary, Faisal Abu S M, Sircar Adrija, O'Neill Parker, Rame J Eduardo, Franklin Sona, Waqas Muhammad, Shah Hadia, Rajapreyar Indranee, Alvarez Rene J
Department of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States.
Department of Cardiology, Sidney Kimmel School of Medicine, Jefferson Heart Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States.
World J Cardiol. 2025 Jun 26;17(6):105330. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v17.i6.105330.
Development of pericardial effusion in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can be detrimental to health outcomes. This study aims to elucidate the prevalence and risk factors for pericardial effusion in patients with LVADs.
To elucidate risk factors associated with the presence of pericardial effusion in patients with LVADs and compare the clinical outcomes of those with and without pericardial effusion. The secondary goal is to determine the incidence of pericardiocentesis and pericardial window placement in patients with LVADs experiencing pericardial effusion.
Data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2016 and 2018. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson test and multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine clinical outcomes of pericardial effusion and to identify variables associated with pericardial effusion in LVAD patients, respectively.
The prevalence of LVAD was 9850 (0.01%) among total study patients ( = 98112095). The incidence of pericardial effusion among LVAD patients was 640 (6.5%). The prevalence of liver disease (26.6% 17.4%), chronic kidney disease (CKD; 54.6% 49.4%), hypothyroidism (21.9% 18.1%), congestive heart failure (98.4% 96.5%), atrial fibrillation (Afib; 58.59% 50.5%), coronary artery disease (CAD; 11.7% 4.4%), dyslipidemia (31.3% 39.3%), and having undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 1.6% 0.7%) was higher in the pericardial effusion cohort the non-pericardial effusion cohort. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that CAD (OR = 2.89) and PCI (OR = 2.2) had the greatest association with pericardial effusion in patients with LVADs. These were followed by liver disease (OR = 1.72), hypothyroidism (OR = 1.2), electrolyte derangement (OR = 1.2), Afib (OR = 1.1), and CKD (OR = 1.05). Among patients with LVADs, the median length of stay (33 days 27 days) and hospitalization cost (847525 USD 792616 USD) were significantly higher in the pericardial effusion cohort compared to the non-pericardial effusion cohort. There was no significant difference in mortality between cohorts. The prevalence of cardiac tamponade was 109 (17.9% of LVAD patients with pericardial effusion). Ten (9.2% of LVAD patients with cardiac tamponade) patients underwent pericardiocentesis and 44 (40.3%) received a pericardial window.
This study shows that liver disease, CKD, PCI, hypothyroidism, electrolyte derangement, Afib, and CAD had a significant association with pericardial effusion in LVAD patients. Hospitalization cost and length of stay were higher in the pericardial effusion group, but mortality was the same.
左心室辅助装置(LVAD)患者发生心包积液可能对健康结局产生不利影响。本研究旨在阐明LVAD患者心包积液的患病率及危险因素。
阐明LVAD患者心包积液存在的相关危险因素,并比较有心包积液和无心包积液患者的临床结局。次要目标是确定发生心包积液的LVAD患者心包穿刺术和心包开窗术的发生率。
数据取自2016年至2018年的国家住院样本数据库。分别采用Pearson检验和多因素逻辑回归分析来确定心包积液的临床结局,并识别LVAD患者心包积液的相关变量。
在所有研究患者(n = 98112095)中,LVAD的患病率为9850(0.01%)。LVAD患者心包积液的发生率为640(6.5%)。心包积液队列中肝病(26.6%对17.4%)、慢性肾脏病(CKD;54.6%对49.4%)、甲状腺功能减退(21.9%对18.1%)、充血性心力衰竭(98.4%对96.5%)、心房颤动(房颤;58.59%对50.5%)、冠状动脉疾病(CAD;11.7%对四4.4%)、血脂异常(31.3%对39.3%)以及接受过经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI;1.6%对0.7%)的患病率均高于无心包积液队列。多因素回归分析表明,CAD(OR = 2.89)和PCI(OR = 2.2)与LVAD患者心包积液的关联最大。其次是肝病(OR = 1.72)、甲状腺功能减退(OR = 1.2)、电解质紊乱(OR = 1.2)、房颤(OR = 1.1)和CKD(OR = 1.05)。在LVAD患者中,心包积液队列的中位住院时间(33天对27天)和住院费用($847525对$792616)显著高于无心包积液队列。队列之间的死亡率无显著差异。心脏压塞的患病率为109(占有心包积液的LVAD患者的17.9%)。10例(占发生心脏压塞的LVAD患者的9.
本研究表明,肝病CKD、PCI、甲状腺功能减退、电解质紊乱、房颤和CAD与LVAD患者心包积液显著相关。心包积液组的住院费用和住院时间较高,但死亡率相同。