Pericardiocentesis versus window formation in malignant pericardial effusion: trends and outcomes
Main findingResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.31 95% CI 0.15–0.63Authors' conclusion
In patients undergoing pericardial drainage for MPE, pericardial window formation showed mortality outcomes comparable with pericardiocentesis and was associated with lower incidence of MPE recurrence.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with cancer who underwent pericardial drainage for malignant pericardial effusion (MPE), 2003–2022
- Participants
- 765 patients
- Exposure
- Pericardial window formation vs pericardiocentesis
- Pericardial window formationn = 126
- Pericardiocentesisn = 639reference
- Outcome
- All-cause death and MPE recurrence
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.31
95% CI 0.15–0.63
P = 0.001
By group
Pericardial window formation
6.3%
MPE recurrence
Pericardiocentesis
18.0%
MPE recurrence
Pericardial window formationvs Pericardiocentesis
HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.15–0.63); P = 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
MPE recurrence, period 2 (2013–2022)
- Advantage of pericardial window formation more significant in period 2 (18.1% vs 1.3%)
- log-rank p=0.005
Predictors of MPE recurrence (multivariate)
- Younger age, metastatic or relapsed cancer and positive malignant cells in pericardial fluid associated with increased recurrence
Original publication
Pericardiocentesis versus window formation in malignant pericardial effusion: trends and outcomes. Heart. Published 1 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →