Comparison of surgical pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for pericardial effusion.

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the outcomes for different treatments of pericardial effusions. BACKGROUND: The optimal initial management for symptomatic pericardial effusions remains controversial. METHODS: We performed a 3-year retrospective, single-institution study comparing open surgical drainage to percutaneous pericardiocentesis for symptomatic pericardial effusions. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 193 patients underwent an initial drainage procedure for a pericardial effusion (n = 121 [62.7%] pericardiocentesis; n = 72 [37.3%] open surgical drainage). Compared to those treated with pericardiocentesis, treatment with open surgical drainage was associated with a higher complication rate (4.9% vs 26.4%; P<.0001; odds ratio [OR], 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-18.2). Treatment with pericardiocentesis was associated with a higher rate of repeat procedures to drain a recurrent effusion compared to open surgical drainage (28.9% vs 2.8%; P<.0001; OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 3.3-61.3). Thirty-day mortality (19.8% surgical group vs 18.1% pericardiocentesis group; P=.8) and long-term survival (P=.4) did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in overall mortality between open surgical drainage and percutaneous pericardiocentesis for symptomatic pericardial effusions. There may be more procedural complications following surgical drainage of a pericardial effusion, and a greater need for repeat procedures if the effusion is drained using pericardiocentesis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.