The Diagnostic Value of Pericardial Fluid and Pericardial Biopsy: Single Center Experiences

Authors

  • Mehmet Yildirim Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Recep Ustaalioglu Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Murat Erkan Department of Pathology, Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Bala Basak Oven Ustaalioglu Department of Medical Oncology, Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Hatice Demirbag Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Murat Yasaroglu Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Ilgaz Dogusoy Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Tamer Okay Department of Thoracic Surgery, Siyami Ersek Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1328

Abstract

Background: Patients with recurrent pericardial effusion and pericardial tamponade are usually treated in thoracic surgery clinics by VATS (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery) or open pericardial window operation. The diagnostic importance of pathological evaluation of the pericardial fluid and tissue in the same patients has been reported in few studies. We reviewed pathological examination of the pericardial tissue and fluid specimens and the effect on the clinical treatment in our clinic, and compared the results with the literature.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 174 patients who underwent pericardial window operation due to pericardial tamponade or recurrent pericardial effusion. For all patients both the results of the pericardial fluid and pericardial biopsy specimen were evaluated. Clinicopathological factors were analyzed by using descriptive analysis.
Results: Median age was 61 (range, 20-94 years). The most common benign diagnosis was chronic inflammation (94 patients) by pericardial biopsy. History of malignancy was present in 28 patients (16.1%) and the most common disease was lung cancer (14 patients). A total of 24 patients (13.8%) could be diagnosed as having malignancy by pericardial fluid or pericardial biopsy examination. The malignancy was recognized for 12 patients who had a history of cancer; 9 of 12 with pericardial biopsy, 7 diagnosed by pericardial fluid. Twelve of 156 patients were recognized as having underlying malignancy by pericardial biopsy (n = 9) or fluid examination (n = 10), without known malignancy previously.
Conclusion: Recurrent pericardial effusion/pericardial tamponade are entities frequently diagnosed, and surgical interventions may be needed either for diagnosis and/or treatment, but specific etiology can rarely be obtained in spite of pathological examination of either pericardial tissue or fluid. For increasing the probability of a specific diagnosis both the pericardial fluid and the pericardial tissues have to be sent for pathologic examination.

References

Abdallah R, Atar S. 2014. Etiology and characteristics of large symptomatic pericardial effusion in a community hospital in the contemporary era. QJM 107:363-8.

Ben-Horin S, Bank I, Guetta V, Livneh A. 2006. Large symptomatic pericardial effusion as the presentation of unrecognized cancer: a study in 173 consecutive patients undergoing pericardiocentesis. Medicine (Baltimore) 85:49-53.

Cullinane CA, Paz IB, Smith D, Carter N, Grannis FW Jr. 2004. Prognostic factors in the surgical management of pericardial effusion in the patient with concurrent malignancy. Chest 125:1328-34.

Gibbs CR, Watson RD, Singh SP, Lip GY. 2000. Management of pericardial effusion by drainage: a survey of 10 years’ experience in a city centre general hospital serving a multiracial population. Postgrad Med J 76:809-13.

Karatolios K, Pankuweit S, Maisch B. 2013. Diagnostic value of biochemical biomarkers in malignant and non-malignant pericardial effusion. Heart Fail Rev 18:337-44.

Maisch B, Bethge C, Drude L, Hufnagel G, Herzum M, Schönian U. 1994. Pericardioscopy and epicardial biopsy--new diagnostic tools in pericardial and perimyocardial disease. Eur Heart J 15:68-73.

Maisch B, Ristic A, Pankuweit S. 2010. Evaluation and management of pericardial effusion in patients with neoplastic disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 53:157-63.

Meyers DG, Meyers RE, Prendergast TW. 1997. The usefulness of diagnostic tests on pericardial fluid. Chest 111:1213-21.

Patel N, Rafique AM, Eshaghian S, et al. 2013. Retrospective comparison of outcomes, diagnostic value, and complications of percutaneous prolonged drainage versus surgical pericardiotomy of pericardial effusion associated with malignancy. Am J Cardiol 112:1235-9.

Rafique AM, Patel N, Biner S, et al. 2011. Frequency of recurrence of pericardial tamponade in patients with extended versus nonextended pericardial catheter drainage. Am J Cardiol 108:1820-5.

Vaitkus PT, Herrmann HC, LeWinter MM. 1994. Treatment of malignant pericardial effusion. JAMA 272:59-64.

Wagner PL, McAleer E, Stillwell E, Bott M, Rusch VW, Huang J. 2011. Pericardial effusions in the cancer population: prognostic factors after pericardial window and the impact of paradoxical hemodynamic instability. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141:34-8.

Wilkes JD, Fidias P, Vaickus L, Perez RP. 1995. Malignancy-related pericardial effusion. 127 cases from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Cancer 76:1377-87.

Published

2016-02-23

How to Cite

Yildirim, M., Ustaalioglu, R., Erkan, M., Ustaalioglu, B. B. O., Demirbag, H., Yasaroglu, M., Dogusoy, I., & Okay, T. (2016). The Diagnostic Value of Pericardial Fluid and Pericardial Biopsy: Single Center Experiences. The Heart Surgery Forum, 19(1), E023-E027. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1328

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)