Cargando…

Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity

PURPOSE: Cardiothoracic surgeons are frequently called upon to perform surgical pericardial drainage procedures (pericardial window) for pericardial effusions. These procedures have therapeutic value, but the diagnostic value of such procedures is debated. We set out to determine the sensitivity of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Volk, Lindsay, Lee, Leonard Y., Lemaire, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31714642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14337
_version_ 1783480176346136576
author Volk, Lindsay
Lee, Leonard Y.
Lemaire, Anthony
author_facet Volk, Lindsay
Lee, Leonard Y.
Lemaire, Anthony
author_sort Volk, Lindsay
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Cardiothoracic surgeons are frequently called upon to perform surgical pericardial drainage procedures (pericardial window) for pericardial effusions. These procedures have therapeutic value, but the diagnostic value of such procedures is debated. We set out to determine the sensitivity of pericardial drainage to detect the disease when cytology, microbiology, and pathology are evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent pericardial windows from 1 July 2011 to 1 January 2018 at a single academic institution was conducted. All patients who had undergone a recent trauma or cardiac procedure were excluded. Cytology, microbiology, and pathology were examined. The charts were then carefully reviewed to determine if a clinical diagnosis was reached. Sensitivity was then calculated for all diseases and for those that should have been able to be detected. RESULTS: One hundred sixty‐two patients who had undergone a pericardial drainage procedure were identified; 49 patients were excluded for recent cardiac procedure or trauma. Of the 113 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 56 patients (49.6%) were female with a mean age of 59.7 ± 15.1 years. A diagnosis based on the pathology, microbiology, or cytology was obtained for 27 patients. The most common pathologies detected were adenocarcinoma (11), bacteremia (9), and small cell lung cancer (3); 56 patients had underlying pathologies that would have been possible to detect with either pathology, microbiology, or cytology. The most common detectable diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (20), bacteremia (12), and lymphoma (7). The most common undetectable diagnoses were idiopathic (17), cardiorenal fluid overload (17), and viral (11). The sensitivity of a pericardial drainage procedure for detecting disease was 0.24 for all cases, and 0.48 when restricted to cases where a detectable disease was present. CONCLUSION: Cytology, microbiology, and pathology for pericardial drainage procedures were unable to detect a diagnosis for 76% of all cases and greater than 50% of cases with the theoretically detectable disease. Pericardial drainage procedures have a clear therapeutic value, but they have limited diagnostic utility.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6916171
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69161712019-12-17 Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity Volk, Lindsay Lee, Leonard Y. Lemaire, Anthony J Card Surg Original Articles PURPOSE: Cardiothoracic surgeons are frequently called upon to perform surgical pericardial drainage procedures (pericardial window) for pericardial effusions. These procedures have therapeutic value, but the diagnostic value of such procedures is debated. We set out to determine the sensitivity of pericardial drainage to detect the disease when cytology, microbiology, and pathology are evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent pericardial windows from 1 July 2011 to 1 January 2018 at a single academic institution was conducted. All patients who had undergone a recent trauma or cardiac procedure were excluded. Cytology, microbiology, and pathology were examined. The charts were then carefully reviewed to determine if a clinical diagnosis was reached. Sensitivity was then calculated for all diseases and for those that should have been able to be detected. RESULTS: One hundred sixty‐two patients who had undergone a pericardial drainage procedure were identified; 49 patients were excluded for recent cardiac procedure or trauma. Of the 113 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 56 patients (49.6%) were female with a mean age of 59.7 ± 15.1 years. A diagnosis based on the pathology, microbiology, or cytology was obtained for 27 patients. The most common pathologies detected were adenocarcinoma (11), bacteremia (9), and small cell lung cancer (3); 56 patients had underlying pathologies that would have been possible to detect with either pathology, microbiology, or cytology. The most common detectable diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (20), bacteremia (12), and lymphoma (7). The most common undetectable diagnoses were idiopathic (17), cardiorenal fluid overload (17), and viral (11). The sensitivity of a pericardial drainage procedure for detecting disease was 0.24 for all cases, and 0.48 when restricted to cases where a detectable disease was present. CONCLUSION: Cytology, microbiology, and pathology for pericardial drainage procedures were unable to detect a diagnosis for 76% of all cases and greater than 50% of cases with the theoretically detectable disease. Pericardial drainage procedures have a clear therapeutic value, but they have limited diagnostic utility. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-12 2019-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6916171/ /pubmed/31714642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14337 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Volk, Lindsay
Lee, Leonard Y.
Lemaire, Anthony
Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title_full Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title_fullStr Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title_full_unstemmed Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title_short Surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
title_sort surgical pericardial drainage procedures have a limited diagnostic sensitivity
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31714642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14337
work_keys_str_mv AT volklindsay surgicalpericardialdrainageprocedureshavealimiteddiagnosticsensitivity
AT leeleonardy surgicalpericardialdrainageprocedureshavealimiteddiagnosticsensitivity
AT lemaireanthony surgicalpericardialdrainageprocedureshavealimiteddiagnosticsensitivity