Retrospective comparison of outcomes, diagnostic value, and complications of percutaneous prolonged drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy of pericardial effusion associated with malignancy

Abstract

Surgical pericardiotomy is often preferred as a primary option in patients with malignant pericardial effusions. Recent series have revealed that prolonged drainage substantially reduces pericardial effusion recurrence rates, even in the setting of malignancy. The aim of the study was to directly compare the efficacy of pericardiocentesis with prolonged drainage with the primary surgical pericardiotomy in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion associated with a malignancy. We retrospectively evaluated 88 patients who presented with pericardial tamponade associated with a malignancy. Pericardiocentesis with extended drainage was performed in 43 patients and surgical pericardiotomy in 45 patients. The recurrence rate was not significantly different in patients with prolonged catheter drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy (12% vs 13%, respectively, p = 0.78). In addition, there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between percutaneous drainage and surgical window (44% vs 53%, respectively, p = 0.39). The overall rate of complications was significantly lower in the prolonged drainage group (2% vs 20%, p = 0.007). Moreover, there were no serious complications in the prolonged drainage group versus 9% in the surgical pericardiotomy group. In conclusion, (1) surgical pericardiotomy with pericardial biopsy does not add significant diagnostic value beyond the cytologic assessment available with pericardiocentesis, (2) surgical pericardiotomy does not improve clinical outcomes over pericardiocentesis, and (3) surgical pericardiotomy is associated with a higher rate of complications.