Goals
Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) in sufferers with most cancers is related to poor prognosis. This examine aimed to check medical outcomes in sufferers with most cancers who underwent pericardiocentesis versus pericardial window formation.
Strategies
Within the current examine, 765 consecutive sufferers with most cancers (imply age 58.4 years, 395 males) who underwent pericardial drainage between 2003 and 2022 had been retrospectively analysed. All-cause loss of life and MPE recurrence had been in contrast primarily based on the drainage technique (pericardiocentesis vs pericardial window formation) and time interval (interval 1: 2003–2012; interval 2: 2013–2022).
Outcomes
Pericardiocentesis was carried out in 639 (83.5%) sufferers and pericardial window formation in 126 (16.5%). There was no distinction in age, intercourse distribution, proportion of metastatic or relapsed most cancers, and chemotherapy standing between the pericardiocentesis and pericardial window formation teams. Distinction was not present in all-cause loss of life between the 2 teams (log-rank p=0.226) whatever the interval. The pericardial window formation group was related to decrease MPE recurrence than the pericardiocentesis group (6.3% vs 18.0%, log-rank p=0.001). This benefit of pericardial window formation was extra important in interval 2 (18.1% vs 1.3%, log-rank p=0.005). In multivariate evaluation, pericardial window formation was related to decrease MPE recurrence (HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.63, p=0.001); youthful age, metastatic or relapsed most cancers, and constructive malignant cells in pericardial fluid had been related to elevated recurrence.
Conclusion
In sufferers present process pericardial drainage for MPE, pericardial window formation confirmed mortality outcomes comparable with pericardiocentesis and was related to decrease incidence of MPE recurrence.