Search

To examine whether the size of the effusion, the presence of tamponade, and inflammatory signs are useful in determining the causes of moderate or severe pericardial effusions.All echocardiograms performed at a general hospital between January 1990 and April 1996 were screened for pericardial effusion. Patients with moderate (echo-free space of 10 to 20 mm during diastole) or severe (echo-free space20 mm) effusions were studied.We identified 322 patients (166 [52%] men, mean [+/- SD] age 56 +/- 17 years [range 15 to 88 years]), 132 (41%) with moderate and 190 (59%) with severe pericardial effusion. The most frequent etiologic diagnoses were acute idiopathic pericarditis (n = 66 [20%]), iatrogenic effusions (n = 50 [16%]), cancer (n = 43 [13%]), and chronic idiopathic pericardial effusion (n = 29 [9%]). In 192 (60%) of the patients, the cause of the effusion was a known medical condition. In the 130 other patients, inflammatory signs were associated with acute idiopathic pericarditis (likelihood ratio = 5. 4, P0.001), severe effusions without inflammatory signs or tamponade were associated with chronic idiopathic pericardial effusion (likelihood ratio = 20, P0.001), and tamponade without inflammatory signs was associated with malignant effusions (likelihood ratio = 2.9, P0.01).In many patients, pericardial effusions are due to a known underlying disease or condition. In patients without underlying diseases, inflammatory signs, the size of effusion, and the presence or absence of cardiac tamponade can be helpful in establishing cause.

PURPOSE: To assess whether drainage of pericardial effusion by pericardiocentesis or surgery is justified as a routine measure in the initial management of patients with large pericardial effusion without tamponade or suspected purulent pericarditis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All patients with large pericardial effusion without tamponade or suspected purulent pericarditis who were seen at our institution during a span of 6 years (1990 to 1995) were retrospectively (46) or prospectively (25) reviewed. Large pericardial effusion was defined as a sum of echo-free pericardial spaces in diastole exceeding 20 mm. RESULTS: Large pericardial effusion was diagnosed in 162 patients, 71 of whom fulfilled criteria for inclusion. Of these, 26 underwent a pericardial drainage procedure. Diagnostic yield was 7%, as only 2 specific diagnoses were made using these procedures. During follow-up (95% of patients, median 10 months), no patient developed cardiac tamponade or died as a result of pericardial disease, nor did any new diagnoses become manifest in the 45 patients who did not have pericardial drainage initially. Moderate or large effusions persisted in only 2 of 45 patients managed conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine pericardial drainage procedures have a very low diagnostic yield in patients with large pericardial effusion without tamponade or suspected purulent pericarditis, and no clear therapeutic benefit is obtained with this approach. Clinical outcomes depend on underlying diseases, and do not appear to be influenced by drainage of pericardial fluid.