Pericardiocentesis over 3 years at a tertiary referral Australian hospital
Authors: Ramachandran J , Pender P , Assad J , Wang A , Faour A , Leung D , Rajaratnam R , Mussap C , Juergens C , Lo S 
Published: February 2022

Abstract

Funding Acknowledgements
Type of funding sources: None.

Background
Pericardiocentesis is a lifesaving intervention performed both percutaneously or surgically. We analysed 3 years of experience in a major tertiary hospital in Sydney Australia.

Purpose
To examine the indications, safety and delivery of a pericardiocentesis service at a major teaching hospital.

Methods
We retrospectively audited consecutive patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion[PE] at a major teaching hospital from February 2018 to December 2020. Eligible patients were identified from the electronic medical records with this coding diagnosis.

Results
89 patients identified with mean age 60.8 ± 18.9years and 58.4%(51/89) male. Follow-up to August 2021 showed 41.5% had died, with an index hospitalisation mortality of 19%(17/89). Malignancy was the most common aetiology 30.3%(27/89) and attributable cause of hospitalisation death in 29.4%. Alternate causes included pericarditis 14.6%, idiopathic 13.4%, percutaneous-coronary-intervention(PCI) 5.6%(6/89) and electrophysiology 4.5%(4/89) complications. Three patients had aortic dissection (3.3%) and two were fatal. Clinical tamponade was present in 66.2%(55/89), PE identification occurred via echocardiography(TTE) in 55% cases (49/89) and incidental CT-diagnosis in 20.2%. TTE findings: right atrial collapse 54%(47/87), right ventricular collapse 60.9%(53/87), fixed and dilated inferior vena cava 64.7%. Pericardiocentesis was performed by cardiology trainees in 90.5% cases, 64.5% with consultant supervision and during working hours in 57.3% of cases. Percutaneous drainage was successful in 96%(72/75) of cases and was performed in the coronary care unit (30.3%), catheterisation laboratory (23.5%), emergency department (19.1%) and ICU (11.2%). Subxiphoid approach in 70%(62/89) was the most common then trans-apical 15%(13/89), parasternal 3%(3/89) and surgical 16%(14/89). TTE confirmed drain position in 76%(54/71), fluoroscopy in 28.5%(6/21) and agitated saline in 38.9%(30/77). Haemo-serous fluid noted in 77%(67/87) with average initial fluid drainage 480 ± 326mls and mean drain removal time 54 ± 33hrs. 17%(15/89) required re-drainage with adenocarcinoma found in 33.3%(5/15). Background antiplatelet treatment in 30.6%(27/88) and of these 67%(18/27) were on dual antiplatelets. 33%(29/89) patients were anticoagulated and 31.3%(9/29) required reversal prior to drainage. Complications were rare, 4%(3/75) had right heart chamber perforation needing emergency surgery. Two were post complex PCI (one died during admission from multiorgan failure) and one with pericarditis .

Conclusions
Pericardiocentesis is a safe and effective procedure for tamponade treatment and largely guided by echocardiography in our experience. Complications are rare and prognosis depends on aetiology with malignancy the most common. Drainage is often successfully performed emergently where the patient is located. Tamponade resulting from procedural complications are rare in our cohort.