Percutaneous pericardiocentesis versus pericardial window: A retrospective subset analysis in a cancer population.

Abstract

e23093 Background: Malignant pericardial effusions (PEs) must often, and for a multitude of reasons, be managed invasively. Options for intervention include percutaneous or surgical drainage. There is a paucity of data directly comparing efficacy of these interventions. This study compares efficacy of surgical pericardial window (PW) percutaneous pericardiocentesis (PP) in cancer subjects with PEs, with respect to mortality, readmission, and repeat procedure. Methods: We performed a 5 year, retrospective, single center study at a major academic center. 79 patients were selected using ICD codes for PP (n = 19) and PW (n = 59) and grouped by first procedure performed. Log Rank Regression of Kaplan-Meier Curves was performed for major adverse events, as defined by repeat procedure, readmission, or mortality during the surveillance period. Results: Log Rank Tests of readmission and mortality were not statistically significant (P = 0.54, 0.656 respectively). Single Variate Log Rank Test of repeat procedure favored PW (P = 0.008, event rates: PP 21.1% vs PW 3.4%. Multivariate Log Rank Test of and all 3 events was not statistically significant (P = 0.168). Fig 1: Kaplan-Meier Analysis of PP (0) vs PW (1) by any event (repeat procedure, readmission, or mortality). Event Rate = 89.5% PC, 89.5% PW. Conclusions: PW patients had a lower incidence of repeat procedures. There were no differences in readmission, mortality, or a composite of all 3 events. Future aims will identify risk factors associated with repeat procedures in PCs and PWs.