Pericardial Effusion - Differential Diagnosis

5/15/02 (Lassiter)

Question: What is the best approach to the differential diagnosis of pericardial effusion?

 Link Directly to Fulltext Article at Science Direct

<2>

Unique Identifier:10967149

Authors: Sagrista-Sauleda J. Merce J. Permanyer-Miralda G. Soler-Soler J.

Institution: Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital General Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.

Title: Clinical clues to the causes of large pericardial effusions. [see comments.].

Source: American Journal of Medicine. 109(2):95-101, 2000 Aug 1.

Abstract: PURPOSE: 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.SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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 space >20 mm) effusions were studied. RESULTS: 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, P < 0.001), severe effusions without inflammatory signs or tamponade were associated with chronic idiopathic pericardial effusion (likelihood ratio = 20, P < 0.001), and tamponade without inflammatory signs was associated with malignant effusions (likelihood ratio = 2.9, P < 0.01).CONCLUSIONS: 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.

  Link Directly to Fulltext Article at Science Direct

<3>

Unique Identifier:7856532

Authors: Zayas R. Anguita M. Torres F. Gimenez D. Bergillos F. Ruiz M. Ciudad M. Gallardo A. Valles F.

Institution: Department of Cardiology, Hospital Reina Sofia, University of Cordoba, Spain.

Title: Incidence of specific etiology and role of methods for specific etiologic diagnosis of primary acute pericarditis.

Source: American Journal of Cardiology. 75(5):378-82, 1995 Feb 15.

Abstract: To assess the incidence of a specific etiology and the role of methods for specific etiologic diagnosis in patients with primary acute pericarditis, we studied 100 patients with primary acute pericarditis consecutively admitted to our hospital between 1991 and 1993. A general diagnostic protocol was performed in all patients, whereas only pericardiocentesis was performed in patients with clinical cardiac tamponade or an unfavorable course with anti-inflammatory drugs. Surgical drainage and pericardial biopsy was performed in patients with tamponade relapse. A specific etiology was discovered in 22 patients (22%) (neoplasms in 7, tuberculosis in 4, other infections in 3, collagen diseases in 3, thyroid disorders in 4, and dissecting aortic aneurysm in 1). The general diagnostic protocol led to a specific diagnosis in 15 patients (68% of all patients with specific acute pericarditis) and pericardiocentesis in the other 7 patients (32%). The role of a diagnostic protocol, therapeutic pericardiocentesis, and diagnostic pericardiocentesis was similar and complementary. Pericardial biopsy results were negative in the 5 patients in whom it was performed. Cardiac tamponade and an unfavorable clinical outcome were significantly (p < 0.001) associated with the finding of a specific etiology; when both features were combined, sensitivity was 86% and specificity 85%, positive predictive value 63% and negative predictive value 96%. We conclude that the specific etiology in patients with primary acute pericarditis is about 20% to 25%, and that about 90% of these specific cases can be discovered by using the described systematic diagnostic protocol only in patients with an unfavorable outcome (cardiac tamponade or poor clinical course).

<6>

Unique Identifier:4050698

Authors: Permanyer-Miralda G. Sagrista-Sauleda J. Soler-Soler J.

Title: Primary acute pericardial disease: a prospective series of 231 consecutive patients.

Source: American Journal of Cardiology. 56(10):623-30, 1985 Oct 1.

Abstract: A series of 231 patients with "primary" acute pericardial disease (acute pericarditis or tamponade presenting without an apparent cause) were studied according to the following protocol: general clinical and laboratory studies (stage I), pericardiocentesis (stage II), pericardial biopsy (stage III) and blind antituberculous therapy (stage IV). In 32 patients (14%) a specific etiologic diagnosis was obtained (13 with neoplasia, 9 with tuberculosis, 4 with collagen vascular disease, 2 with toxoplasmosis, 2 with purulent pericarditis and 2 with viral pericarditis). "Diagnostic" pericardiocentesis (32 patients) was performed when clinical activity and effusion persisted for longer than 1 week or when purulent pericarditis was suspected, whereas "therapeutic" pericardiocentesis (44 patients) was performed to treat tamponade; their diagnostic yield was 6% and 29%, respectively. "Diagnostic" biopsy (20 patients) was carried out when illness persisted for longer than 3 weeks, whereas "therapeutic" biopsy was performed whenever pericardiocentesis failed to relieve tamponade; their diagnostic yield was 5% and 54%, respectively. The diagnostic yield difference between "diagnostic" and "therapeutic" procedures was significant (p less than 0.001); in contrast, the global diagnostic yield of pericardiocentesis (19%) and biopsy (22%) was similar. At the end of follow-up (1 to 76 months, mean 31 +/- 20), no patient in whom a diagnosis of idiopathic pericarditis had been made showed signs of pericardial disease. It is concluded that a "diagnostic" procedure is not warranted as a routine method, a choice between "therapeutic" pericardiocentesis and biopsy is circumstantial and must be individualized, and only through a systematic approach can a substantial diagnostic yield be reached in primary acute pericardial disease.

 1.5852.1.117