Pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage: A national comparison of clinical outcomes and resource use.

Abstract

BackgroundWhile institutional series have sought to define the optimal strategy for drainage of pericardial effusions, large-scale comparisons remain lacking. Using a nationally representative sample, the present study examined clinical and financial outcomes following pericardiocentesis (PC) and surgical drainage (SD) in patients admitted for pericardial effusion and tamponade.MethodsAdults undergoing PC or SD within 2 days of admission for non-surgically related pericardial effusion or tamponade were identified in the 2016–2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multivariable logistic and linear models were developed to evaluate the association between intervention type and outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was mortality while secondary endpoints included reintervention, periprocedural complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs and 30-day non-elective readmission.ResultsOf an estimated 44,637 records meeting inclusion criteria, 28,862 (64.7%) underwent PC while the remainder underwent SD for initial management of pericardial effusion or tamponade. PC was associated with significantly increased odds of in-hospital mortality, reintervention and 30-day readmission relative to SD. PC was also associated with greater odds of cardiac complications but lower odds of infection, respiratory failure and blood transfusions compared to SD. Although PC was associated with shorter index hospital length of stay and costs, the two strategies yielded similar 30-day cumulative costs.ConclusionManagement of pericardial effusion with PC is associated with greater odds of mortality, reintervention and 30-day readmission but similar 30-day cumulative costs compared to SD. In the setting of adequate hospital capability and operator expertise, SD is a reasonable initial treatment strategy for pericardial effusion.