Objective:
Surgical pericardial fenestration (sPF) is more invasive than interventional pericardiocentesis (PC) and requires general anesthesia. Severe complications such as ventricular puncture and chamber lacerations are, however, reported in association with PC and not with sPF. Is survival after sPF only determined by nonsurgical factors?
Methods:
Between July 2000 and December 2015, data of all patients who had undergone sPF—either thoracoscopically or by anterior mini-thoracotomy—were investigated. The 2 techniques were analyzed retrospectively and the outcome (effectiveness, change in shock index) and the survival were assessed.
Results:
32 patients underwent 33 sPF. One-half of the patients had a benign underlying disease; the other half suffered from a malignant tumor. Four procedures were performed thoracoscopically and 29 via mini-thoracotomy. Both techniques were hemodynamically effective (P < 0.0001) in increasing blood pressure and decreasing pulse rate). There was no death due to failure to control the pericardial effusion and no procedure related mortality. Of the 16 patients with benign underlying disease 14 (87.5%) are still alive. Two died due to reasons unrelated to the procedure or the underlying disease. All 16 patients (100%) with malignant underlying disease died due to tumor progression.
Conclusions:
In our patient cohort minimally invasive thoracic PF was safe and effective. The survival in our study was only related to the nature of the underlying disease. We conclude that sPF is an excellent procedure to treat pericardial effusions: both examined surgical techniques, thoracoscopic video assisted and access via mini-thoracotomy, were equally effective and safe.
Video-assisted thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration for pericardial effusion
