Scholarlink

Aims <p>Percutaneous pericardiocentesis is the standard diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for severe pericardial effusion (PE). While its procedural safety has improved over time, data on long-term outcomes in cancer patients remain limited. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes after pericardiocentesis, with a specific focus on neoplastic-related PE.</p> Methods <p>We collected data of patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis at the University Hospital of Modena, between December 2006 and September 2025. Patients were stratified into three groups: neoplastic, idiopathic, and other specific etiologies. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital adverse events.</p> Results <p>A total of 179 patients were included (median age 72, 39.7% women). Major procedural-related complications occurred in 4.5% of patients, while in-hospital mortality was 15.6%. During a mean follow-up of 15.8&#xa0;months, 44.1% of patients died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with neoplastic PE (61.1%) compared with those with other etiologies (44.9%) and idiopathic PE (23.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.001). Neoplastic etiology was independently associated with an increased risk of death compared with idiopathic PE (aHR 5.22, 95% CI 2.41–11.35).</p> Conclusions <p>Our study showed that percutaneous pericardiocentesis is an effective and safe procedure, with a major complication rate consistent with contemporary series across variable etiologies. Despite similar procedural safety, patients with neoplastic PE experienced markedly worse long-term outcomes linked to the underlying malignancy rather than the procedure itself. In oncological patients, pericardiocentesis should be contextualized within the overall oncological trajectory, balancing procedural benefit with patient prognosis and individual treatment goals.</p> Graphical abstract <p>Percutaneous pericardiocentesis in cancer and noncancer patients. Legend: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio (analysis adjusted for age, coronary artery disease, and hemodynamic instability); CI, confidence interval; PE, pericardial effusion.</p> <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Long-term mortality and acute complications after percutaneous pericardiocentesis in cancer and noncancer patients presenting with severe pericardial effusion

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月22日

查看全文
  • Marco Vitolo,
  • Marta Mantovani,
  • Alberto Bagnoli,
  • Fabio A. Sgura,
  • Salvatore Arrotti,
  • Daniel E. Monopoli,
  • Rosario Rossi,
  • Jacopo F. Imberti,
  • Davide A. Mei,
  • Niccolò Bonini,
  • Massimo Dominici,
  • Giuseppe Longo,
  • Teresa Lopez-Fernandez,
  • Giuseppe Boriani

摘要

Aims

Percutaneous pericardiocentesis is the standard diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for severe pericardial effusion (PE). While its procedural safety has improved over time, data on long-term outcomes in cancer patients remain limited. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes after pericardiocentesis, with a specific focus on neoplastic-related PE.

Methods

We collected data of patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis at the University Hospital of Modena, between December 2006 and September 2025. Patients were stratified into three groups: neoplastic, idiopathic, and other specific etiologies. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital adverse events.

Results

A total of 179 patients were included (median age 72, 39.7% women). Major procedural-related complications occurred in 4.5% of patients, while in-hospital mortality was 15.6%. During a mean follow-up of 15.8 months, 44.1% of patients died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with neoplastic PE (61.1%) compared with those with other etiologies (44.9%) and idiopathic PE (23.4%, p = 0.001). Neoplastic etiology was independently associated with an increased risk of death compared with idiopathic PE (aHR 5.22, 95% CI 2.41–11.35).

Conclusions

Our study showed that percutaneous pericardiocentesis is an effective and safe procedure, with a major complication rate consistent with contemporary series across variable etiologies. Despite similar procedural safety, patients with neoplastic PE experienced markedly worse long-term outcomes linked to the underlying malignancy rather than the procedure itself. In oncological patients, pericardiocentesis should be contextualized within the overall oncological trajectory, balancing procedural benefit with patient prognosis and individual treatment goals.

Graphical abstract

Percutaneous pericardiocentesis in cancer and noncancer patients. Legend: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio (analysis adjusted for age, coronary artery disease, and hemodynamic instability); CI, confidence interval; PE, pericardial effusion.