Pericardial Decompression Syndrome Research Articles

The Jack-in-the-Box: Pericardial Decompression Syndrome Managed by a Multidisciplinary Approach with Early Initiation of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Case Report

The Jack-in-the-Box: Pericardial Decompression Syndrome Managed by a Multidisciplinary Approach with Early Initiation of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Case Report

Life-saving VA-ECMO treatment for pericardial decompression syndrome with acute biventricular failure: a case report

Life-saving VA-ECMO treatment for pericardial decompression syndrome with acute biventricular failure: a case report

Pericardial Decompression Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review of a Controversial Entity.

Pericardial decompression syndrome is an ambiguous clinical entity which has generated controversy regarding its existence. Following pericardial decompression, patients experienced clinical deterioration ranging in complications from pulmonary edema to death that could not be attributed to any other distinct clinical pathology. Multiple theories have suggested the pathophysiology behind pericardial decompression syndrome is related to preload-afterload mismatch following pericardial decompression, coronary microvascular ischemia, and stress from high adrenergic state. Our review aims to describe this syndrome by analyzing demographics, etiology of pericardial effusion, method of drainage, volume of pericardial fluid removed, time to decompensation, and clinical outcomes. A systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar literature databases were queried for case reports, case series, review articles, and abstracts published in English journals between 1983 and December 2022. Each author's interpretation of echocardiographic and/or pulmonary arterial catheterization data provided in the case reports was used to characterize ventricular dysfunction. Based on our inclusion criteria, 72 cases of pericardial decompression syndrome were included in our review. Our results showed that phenotypic heterogeneity was present based on echocardiographic findings of right/left or biventricular failure with similar proportions in each type of ventricular dysfunction. Time to decompensation was similar between immediate, subacute, and acute cases with presentation varying between hypoxic respiratory failure and shock. This review article highlights theories behind the pathophysiology, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic options in this high mortality condition.

Abstract 12272: Pericardial Decompression Syndrome Following Low Volume Pericardiocentesis for Malignant Cardiac Tamponade

Introduction: Cardiac tamponade is a life-threatening condition requiring emergent intervention. Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is a rare complication that presents as acute ventricular dysfunction following pericardiocentesis with a mortality rate up to 29%. In this case, we present a patient with PDS who developed cardiogenic shock following pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade. Clinical course: A 58-year-old female with no significant cardiac history presented with chest pain and dyspnea. Computed topography revealed a mediastinal mass and large pericardial effusion. Transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) demonstrated the effusion with tamponade physiology. Left ventricular (LV) systolic function was preserved at this time. A total of 450ml of serosanguinous fluid was removed by pericardiocentesis, with minimal residual volume around the RV and a large effusion remaining around the LV. Repeat TTE 14 hours later revealed severe global hypokinesis and biventricular failure with an LV EF of 15%. The patient was started on inotropic therapy and transferred to our tertiary care center. Continuous diuresis and vasopressor therapy were initiated. Once stable, the patient was taken for pericardial window with further removal of 600ml of fluid. Subsequent TTE demonstrated recovery of LV systolic function to 47%. Discussion: Our patient developed cardiogenic shock secondary to biventricular heart failure following pericardiocentesis. This presentation is concerning for pericardial decompression syndrome. While the exact mechanism of PDS is not known, the current hypothesis postulates that drainage of fluid compressing the RV leads to a sudden increase in venous return. This abrupt change causes septal bowing and decreased LV systolic function. Some sources recommend draining pericardial fluid in smaller quantities; however, PDS may still occur at smaller volumes as was seen in our patient. PDS is a rare but life-threatening complication that requires vigilance post-pericardiocentesis regardless of volume removed.

Acute Right Ventricular Failure Immediately Following Subxiphoid Pericardial Window Requiring Temporary Cardiopulmonary Bypass Support: A Case Report of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome

Cardiac tamponade is a life-threatening condition requiring emergent intervention, such as a pericardial window, to drain the pericardial effusion, subsequently improving cardiac output. A rare complication of this procedure is pericardial decompression syndrome which results in a paradoxical cardiovascular collapse. A 65-year-old male with bacterial endocarditis status posts mitral and aortic valve replacement presented for an emergent subxiphoid pericardial window to relieve cardiac tamponade. After draining 850mL of pericardial fluid, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest secondary to acute right ventricular failure seen on an intraoperative transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE). Despite manual compressions and high-dose vasopressors, hemodynamics did not improve, and the patient was emergently placed on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) support. Within two hours, CPB support was successfully weaned. Temporary CPB can improve acute right ventricular failure following pericardial decompression without needing longer-term extracorporeal support.

Transient Biventricular Dysfunction Following Pericardiocentesis for Cardiac Tamponade

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is an unusual, potentially fatal complication that occurs after pericardial drainage for cardiac tamponade. either by needle pericardiocentesis or surgical pericardiostomy. It manifests with paradoxical hemodynamic deterioration and/or pulmonary edema, commonly associated with ventricular dysfunction. PDS usually begins after initial clinical amelioration after pericardiocentesis. It is largely under-reported and may be neglected in clinical practice. While the precise mechanisms behind PDS are not well understood, it seems to be strongly related to patients with preexisting ventricular dysfunction. Doctors who perform pericardial drainage should be mindful of the associated high-risk factors for the intervention, taking into consideration the uncommon possibility of PDS formation.

Abstract 13023: Contemporary Echocardiography-Guided Pericardiocentesis Outcomes in a High-Volume Tertiary Teaching Hospital

Introduction: First performed in the 1970s, echo-guided pericardiocentesis has become the preferred approach for draining pericardial effusions. After identifying the largest pocket, a cardiology attending and fellow use a micropuncture needle kit, confirm placement with agitated saline, and leave a side and end hole 8 French drain stocked with sterile saline. This is drained every 8 hours by nursing and never left to gravity or else it tends to clot. The drain is removed when output is <25 cc in 24 hours, or by 7 days. Methods: We prospectively maintained an IRB approved database of pericardiocenteses performed by three experienced cardiology attendings directly supervising a multitude of fellows between 2009-2021 at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Results: Of 391 pericardiocenteses, 61% were for tamponade. 66% were done from an apical approach, 18% subcostal, 11% left parasternal, and 2% right parasternal. Drains were left in for an average of 3.1 days (range 1-10 days). An average of 578 mL were drained with the initial procedure (range 5-2670 mL), and 62% of effusions were bloody. A total of 42% were deemed idiopathic, without an identifiable cause, 27% were associated with malignancy (56% of these had positive cytology with remaining unlikely from any other cause), 9% after open heart surgery (valve replacement, heart transplant, dissection repair), 8% post-procedural (electrophysiology, cardiac catheterization, line placement), 5% were in chronic dialysis patients, and the remainder were due to a combination of hemorrhage not related to a procedure, rheumatic, post-radiation, or medication-induced. The rate of serious complications was 3% and included 4 pneumothoraces, 3 hemothoraces, 3 cases of pericardial decompression syndrome, 1 RV microperforation, and one PEA arrest resulting from cardiac perforation. There were no mortalities. The rate of non-serious complications was 4% and included pleural placement of drain in 8, severe pain remitting with drain removal in 5, prolonged bleeding from puncture site in 2, and SVT during placement in 1. Conclusion: Overall, echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis by experienced providers supervising fellows-in-training is a safe and effective means of draining pericardial effusions.

Techniques, indications and complications of pericardiocentesis

The main aim of pericardiocentesis is to remove excess fluid in the pericardial space and enhance the functions of the heart to intervene against the development of many complications. Accordingly, the procedure is usually performed to manage cardiac tamponade to correct secondary hypotension that attributes to the low stroke volume as a result of the external pressure of the pericardial fluid on the chambers of the heart. In the present literature review, we have discussed the techniques, indications, and complications of pericardiocentesis. Furthermore, the main techniques and approaches include computed tomography-guided pericardiocentesis, echo-guided, and fluoroscopy-guided techniques. These modalities can be successfully used for hemodynamically unstable patients to adequately remove excess fluid to normalize ventricular filling and maintain adequate cardiac output to the peripheral tissues. Considerations for using the modality have been made for small effusions and many authors suggest that it should not be routinely used in these situations. Many major and minor complications can occur secondary to conducting pericardiocentesis. The major complications might include lacerations of the intercostal vessels of the coronary arteries, injury to the cardiac chambers, death, puncture of the peritoneal cavity or abdominal viscera, pneumopericardium, pneumothorax which might require chest intubation, pericardial decompression syndrome, and ventricular arrhythmias. Therefore, carefully approaching these patients and deciding the best management plan, in addition to providing proper interventional approaches for the potential development of these complications is essential to enhance the intended outcomes and enhance the quality of care.

IN A TIME OF VIRAL SPREAD, DON'T FORGET THE USUAL SUSPECTS

TOPIC: Critical Care TYPE: Medical Student/Resident Case Reports INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of lung malignancy can often be incidental. We present a hemodynamically unstable patient with COVID-19 and pericardial effusion, subsequently diagnosed with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lung. CASE PRESENTATION: A 54-year-old male with no significant medical history was diagnosed with COVID-19 two weeks prior to presentation. He had dyspnea on exertion since that time and presented to the hospital after having an abnormal CXR and leukocytosis on out-patient testing. His blood pressure was 95/68 with a heart rate of 129. EKG revealed atrial fibrillation and electrical alternans. He had mildly elevated BNP and troponin, with lactic acidosis. Bilateral opacities were noted on CXR. A large effusion concerning for tamponade was noted on bedside echo. He underwent immediate pericardiocentesis and had 2L serosanguinous fluid drained. After initial stabilization, he was found to have extensive bilateral lower extremity DVT and PE.Repeat TTE showed residual effusion with tamponade physiology observed. Despite the findings on imaging, a pericardial window was not pursued due to concerns of anesthesia induction in the setting of a new PE. He underwent placement of a pericardial drain instead. After the procedure, heparin drip was initiated with an IVC filter placed soon after. The patient eventually had a pericardial window placed. His arrhythmia was chemically converted back to sinus rhythm. On POD5, the drains were removed.Autoimmune workup of the fluid was within normal limits, but cytology resulted in a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma positive for TTF-1. Thus, he was diagnosed with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the lung. CT revealed multiple lytic lesions with diffuse lymphadenopathy. MRI showed no evidence of brain metastasis. He was transitioned to apixaban at discharge, with out-patient oncology follow-up. DISCUSSION: A small study of 31 patients showed pericardial effusion was an independent risk factor predicting severity of COVID-19 infection, with reports of the virus being detected in pericardial fluid.[1,2] While virus infection can cause pericardial effusion, other causes should not be ignored in the workup. With hemodynamic instability, immediate intervention is warranted despite the risk involved with pericardiocentesis. In patients with large volume of pericardial effusion extracted, 5% of them will suffer from paradoxical hemodynamic instability and pulmonary edema afterwards, a condition known as pericardial decompression syndrome.[3] The increased venous return after decompression will compress the LV, based on the principle of ventricular coupling, reducing the cardiac output. Treatment for this condition is supportive. CONCLUSIONS: While COVID-19 is known to cause pericardial effusion, other causes, such as malignancy, should not be forgotten and should always remain in our differential. The risk involved with immediate pericardiocentesis goes beyond cardiac injury. REFERENCE #1: Chen Q, Xu L, Dai Y, et al. Cardiovascular manifestations in severe and critical patients with COVID -19. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43(7):796-802. REFERENCE #2: Farina A, Uccello G, Spreafico M, Bassanelli G, Savonitto S. SARS-CoV-2 detection in the pericardial fluid of a patient with cardiac tamponade. Eur J Intern Med. 2020;76:100-101. REFERENCE #3: Prabhakar Y, Goyal A, Khalid N, et al. Pericardial decompression syndrome: A comprehensive review. World J Cardiol. 2019;11(12):282-291. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Rumon Chakravarty, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Vernon Chan, source=Web Response

A Comprehensive Systemic Literature Review of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome: Often Unrecognized and Potentially Fatal Syndrome.

Background Pericardial Decompression Syndrome (PDS) is defined as paradoxical hemodynamic deterioration and/or pulmonary edema, commonly associated with ventricular dysfunction. This phenomenon was first described by Vandyke in 1983. PDS is a rare but formidable complication of pericardiocentesis, which, if not managed appropriately, is fatal. PDS, as an entity, has discrete literature; this review is to understand its epidemiology, presentation, and management.Methodology Medline, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases were utilized to do a systemic literature search. PRISMA protocol was employed. s, case reports, case series and clinical studies were identified from 1983 to 2019. A total of 6508 articles were reviewed, out of which, 210 were short-listed, and after removal of duplicates, 49 manuscripts were included in this review. For statistical analysis, patient data was tabulated in SPSS version 20. Cases were divided into two categories surgical and percutaneous groups. t-test was conducted for continuous variable and chi-square test was conducted for categorical data used for analysis.Results A total of 42 full-length case reports, 2 poster abstracts, 3 case series of 2 patients, 1 case series of 4 patients and 1 case series of 5 patients were included in the study. A total of 59 cases were included in this manuscript. Our data had 45.8% (n=27) males and 54.2% (n=32) females. The mean age of patients was 48.04 ± 17 years. Pericardiocentesis was performed in 52.5% (n=31) cases, and pericardiostomy was performed in 45.8% (n=27). The most common identifiable cause of pericardial effusion was found to be malignancy in 35.6% (n=21). Twenty-three 23 cases reported pre-procedural ejection fraction, which ranged from 20%-75% with a mean of 55.8 ± 14.6%, while 26 cases reported post-procedural ejection fraction which ranged from 10%-65% with a mean of 30% ± 15.1%. Data was further divided into two categories, namely, pericardiocentesis and pericardiostomy. The outcome as death was significant in the pericardiostomy arm with a p-value of < 0.00. The use of inotropic agents for the treatment of PDS was more common in needle pericardiocentesis with a p-value of 0.04. Lastly, the computed recovery time did not yield any significance with a p-value of 0.275.Conclusion Pericardial decompression syndrome is a rare condition with high mortality. Operators performing pericardial drainage should be aware of this complication following drainage of cardiac tamponade, since early recognition and expeditious supportive care are the only therapeutic modalities available for adequate management of this complication.

Management of neoplastic pericarditis – overview of 156 patients

Abstract Introduction Neoplastic pericarditis may develop in any type of cancer, but it is found more frequently in lung cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma. Methods We studied 156 consecutive oncological patients presented with pericardial fluid between 2010 and 2015. Among them, 80 patients were stable, with no indication for pericardial drainage or biopsy, and 76 patients needed surgery to evacuate the pericardium and obtain biopsy. Results Echocardiography and computed tomography were essential in evaluating the topography of the pericardial fluid and the haemodynamic effect, and these investigations helped us choose the appropriate surgical procedure. We performed pericardiocentesis, subxiphoid pericardial drainage, left paraxifoidian pericardial drainage, pericardio-pleural window through intercostal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or through classical thoracic surgery. Twenty-three patients (14.7%) were admitted and treated for cardiac tamponade. The rate of recurrence after pericardial drainage was 3.89%. The immediate survival at 48 h was 97.3%. Conclusion Long-term survival in patients with malignancy and drained pericardial effusion is influenced mainly by the type of underlying malignant disease. We observed a better survival in patients without cardiac tamponade. Immediate survival depends on the pericardial shock complication – postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) or pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS). The indication for pericardial drainage depends on the quantity of pericardial fluid, presence of tamponade, associated pleural effusion and need for biopsy, offering the maximum possible benefit and safety for the patient.

A Rare Case of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome in a Filipino Female Patient With Suspected Malignant Pericardial Effusion

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is a rare, under-reported and potentially fatal complication of pericardial drainage characterized by paradoxical hemodynamic deterioration. The onset ranges from immediate to as long as 48 h post drainage. We present a case of a 51-year-old woman admitted due to progressive dyspnea. She was hemodynamically stable but with signs of cardiac tamponade. On two-dimensional echocardiography (2D-echo) there was a massive pericardial effusion in tamponade physiology. Immediate surgical drainage was done but intra-operatively there was depressed cardiac contractility necessitating inotropic support. Post-operative 2D-echo showed right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. She was admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) for 72 h. Repeat 2D-echo showed marked improvement in RV and LV systolic function. She was then discharged improved on the fifth hospital day. The pathophysiology of PDS is still not very clear. The simplest mechanism is that sudden removal of compressing pericardial fluid causes increased venous return with expansion of the RV at the expense of the LV leading to acute heart failure. There are no published studies to propose preventive measures and treatment remains supportive. There has been only one published case reported here in our country. We report this case of a patient who successfully recovered from PDS. J Med Cases. 2020;11(4):86-89 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3446

SUDDEN PARADOXICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HEART FAILURE FOLLOWING PERICARDIOCENTESIS FOR CARDIAC TAMPONADE CALLED AS PERICARDIAL DECOMPRESSION SYNDROME (RARE, UNDERREPORTED CONDITION)

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is an infrequent, life-threatening complication following pericardial drainage for cardiac tamponade physiology. A 56-year-old woman with history of Hodgkin lymphoma came to an emergency with dyspnea for 2 weeks. Vitals showed blood pressure 90/60 mmHg,

148 Pericardial Decompression Syndrome - a Case Report of Transient Ventricular Failure Post-pericardiocentesis

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is a rare syndrome characterised by cardiac dysfunction following pericardiocentesis for large pericardial effusions with suspected tamponade [[1]Vandyke Jr., W.H. Cure J. Chakko C.S. Gheorghiade M. Pulmonary edema after pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade.The New England Journal of Medicine. 1983; 309: 595-596Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. It is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with metastatic malignancies [[2]Pradhan R. Okabe T. Yoshida K. Angouras D.C. DeCaro M.V. Marhefka G.D. Patient characteristics and predictors of mortality associated with pericardial decompression syndrome: a comprehensive analysis of published cases. [Review].European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2015; 4: 113-120Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar]. A 36-year-old male with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma presented with dyspnoea, tachycardia, hypotension, and right heart failure. Electrocardiogram showed electrical alternans and chest x-ray revealed cardiac enlargement. A transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) demonstrated a large global pericardial effusion with features of tamponade. Pericardiocentesis immediately removed 1.2L of haemoserous fluid. Eleven hours later, the patient developed pulmonary oedema requiring diuretics and non-invasive ventilation. TTE revealed biventricular dilatation with severe global systolic dysfunction, and raised pulmonary pressures. A small residual pericardial effusion remained. CT coronary angiogram revealed calcium score of zero. He was discharged on bisoprolol, ramipril, and ivabradine. Progress TTE 6 weeks post-pericardiocentesis revealed resolution of systolic function. Three possible mechanisms include pre/afterload mismatch [[1]Vandyke Jr., W.H. Cure J. Chakko C.S. Gheorghiade M. Pulmonary edema after pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade.The New England Journal of Medicine. 1983; 309: 595-596Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar], unmasking of pre-existing LV dysfunction [[3]Wolfe M.W. Edelman E.R. Transient systolic dysfunction after relief of cardiac tamponade.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1993; 119: 42-44Crossref PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar], and myocardial stunning from compression of epicardial vessels [[4]Braverman A.C. Sundaresan S. Cardiac tamponade and severe ventricular dysfunction.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1994; 120: 442Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar]. Literature reviews [2Pradhan R. Okabe T. Yoshida K. Angouras D.C. DeCaro M.V. Marhefka G.D. Patient characteristics and predictors of mortality associated with pericardial decompression syndrome: a comprehensive analysis of published cases. [Review].European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2015; 4: 113-120Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar, 5Ayoub C. Chang M. Kritharides L. A case report of ventricular dysfunction post pericardiocentesis: stress cardiomyopathy or pericardial decompression syndrome?.Cardiovascular Ultrasound. 2015; 13: 1-12PubMed Google Scholar] note that PDS occurred after drainage of 450-2100ml, onset within seconds to weeks, a third of cases were fatal, and two thirds of systolic dysfunction normalised. Intercostal catheters are routinely clamped to prevent re-expansion pulmonary oedema, however no such guidelines exist for pericardiocentesis. Here we suggest limiting immediate drainage to 200ml in order to reduce the likelihood of PDS. Further research on limiting the rate and volume of drainage may clarify how to prevent PDS.

Immediate Postoperative Results in the Surgical Treatment of Neoplastic Pericarditis - 76 Consecutive Cases.

Introduction: Pericardial effusion, accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac, may develop in any type of cancer. It was revealed in up to 20% of oncological patients. Method: We made a retrospective study of patients with pericardial efusion presented in our clinic between 2010 and 2015. We included 76 consecutive patients with indication for peri cardial drainage - we performed on them 80 surgical procedures: pericardocentesis, subxiphoid pericardial window, left paraxifoidian pericardial window, intercostal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) pericardial fenestration, and classical thoracic surgery (fenestration or partial pericardiectomy). We had patients with ages between 28 and 83 years. 23 patients were admitted with cardiac tamponade. The immediate postoperatory survival is 97.3 % and the 30-days-postoperatory survival is 81.5 %. Results: The immediate postoperatory mortality is 2.7% and the 30-days-postoperatory mortality is 8.5%. Conclusions: The immediate prognosis of the patient with malignant pericardial effusion is influenced by the risk of postoperative Low-Cardiac-Output-Syndrome (LCOS), or pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS), which remains the main cause of mortality. The long-term prognosis is related to the type of malignant tumor. The most effective tehnique with the lowest rate of recurrence is pericardo-pleural window done thoracoscopically/ by VATS; pericardocentesis has the highest rate of recurrence - 90% and is associated with high rates of cardiac complications and mortality.

Pericardial decompression syndrome: A comprehensive review.

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is an infrequent, life-threatening complication following pericardial drainage for cardiac tamponade physiology. PDS usually develops after initial clinical improvement following pericardiocentesis and is significantly underreported and may be overlooked in the clinical practice. Although the precise mechanisms resulting in PDS are not well understood, this seems to be highly associated with patients who have some underlying ventricular dysfunction. Physicians performing pericardial drainage should be mindful of the risk factors associated with the procedure including the rare potential for the development of PDS.

Abstract 17022: Pericardial Decompression Syndrome: Incidence in a Large Consecutive Series of Echocardiographic-Guided Pericardiocentesis Procedures

Introduction: Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) has been reported as a spectrum of cardiac decompensation following pericardiocentesis including ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock and pulmonary edema. PDS has been reported in patients undergoing drainage ≥450 mL of pericardial fluid. Hence judicious drainage of large volume effusions to avoid complication has been recommended Hypothesis: PDS complicating undergoing transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) guided pericardiocentesis is uncommen Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing TTE guided pericardiocentesis at our center from 1/2007 to 12/2016 were reviewed. Procedures were performed in a standard fashion under moderate conscious sedation with TTE determining the location of aspiration and determining adequate resolution of pericardial fluid post procedure. All fluid was removed at time of centesis regardless of the size of effusion, except for patients with severe pulmonary hypertension (n=9), who had staged removal of 100cc every 10 minutes. Post procedure, a pigtail catheter was left in the pericardial space for ongoing intermittent drainage and removed after the total net output was &lt;50 mL/24 hours. Patients were monitored in an intermediate level care unit. All patients underwent repeat TTE at the time of catheter removal. Large volume was defined as ≥450 mL of fluid. Patients in whom pericardiocentesis was technically unsuccessful were excluded Results: Over a 10-year period a total of 1067 patients (57% male, mean age 62±16 years) underwent 1164 technically successful pericardiocentesis procedures. Of these, 561 patients had large volume (≥450 mL) aspirated (mean 750±345 mL aspirated, range 450 - 4300 mL). Patients had a pericardial catheter in place for a mean 2.9±2 days. One patient with pre-existing severe biventricular dysfunction after aspiration of 400cc developed hypotension that improved with reversal of sedation, but proceeded to have PEA arrest and die. No other patient developed clinical events of acute left or right heart failure, ventricular dysfunction, unexplained hypotension, cardiogenic shock or other clinical events that could relate to PDS Conclusions: At most one episode of PDS was observed after technically successful percutaneous pericardiocentesis in 1164 cases (561 were large volume), although whether this case was PDS is unclear. PDS appears to be very rare, and staging pericardial decompression over time may be unnecessary, other than, perhaps, in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction or severe pulmonary hypertension

Systolic dysfunction after pericardiocentesis: A case report of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome

Rationale: Pericardial decompression syndrome is under appreciated but potentially fatal complication post pericardiocentesis. It should be part of differential diagnosis if patient presents with severe shortness of breath or hemodynamic compromise post-intervention. Prompt management is central to successful outcomes Patient concerns: An interesting 69 year old gentleman who was initially treated for myelodysplastic syndrome and thereafter converted to acute myelogenous leukemia presented with neutropenic fever. Diagnosis: On routine investigations it was identified that patient had large pericardial effusion. Soon after the identification of large pericardial effusion, patient’s condition deteriorated and had hemodynamic collapse. Intervention: An emergent pericardiocentesis was performed successfully via sub-xiphoid approach Outcome: Clinically the patient deteriorated the next day and we performed echocardiogram which showed a dramatic decrease in ejection fraction (from 60-65% to 35%). Over the course of next two days, the patient showed remarkable recovery with ejection fraction of 50% without any intervention Lessons: Pericardial decompression syndrome is not a well-recognized fatal complication of pericardiocentesis. It should be part of differential diagnosis if patient develops hemodynamic compromise post procedure. Prompt management including supportive therapies, and/or administration of heart failure is crucial to the hemodynamic recovery. The major risk factor, based on a small case series, denotes surgical drainage as potential contributor. Large case control series needs to be pooled before bona fide risk factor can be ascertained.

Acute Right Ventricular Failure After Surgical Drainage of Pericardial Tamponade: A Case Report of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome and Review of the Literature

Acute Right Ventricular Failure After Surgical Drainage of Pericardial Tamponade: A Case Report of Pericardial Decompression Syndrome and Review of the Literature

Başarılı Perikardiyosentez Sonrası Nadir ve Tehlikeli Bir Komplikasyon: Perikardiyal Dekompresyon Sendromu

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is an infrequent but mostly fatal complication after successful pericardiocentesis. We present a case of a 27-year-old female patient with suspected malignancy and cardiac tamponade treated with pericardiocentesis, followed by acute pulmonary edema and cardiac arrest 2 hours later. We also reviewed possible mechanisms involved in PDS pathophysiology in the context of literature data.