12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance, pain, and quality of life on use of central venous catheter for management of pericardial effusions in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Different pericardial catheters have been suggested as an effective alternative method for drainage of pericardial effusion. The aim of this study was to determine the performance, pain, and quality of life on use of central venous catheter (CVC) for drainage of pericardial effusion in patients undergoing open heart surgery. Fifty-five patients who had developed pericardial effusion after an open heart surgery (2012–2015) were prospectively assessed. Triple-lumen central catheters were inserted under echocardiographic guidance. Clinical, procedural, complication, and outcome details were analyzed. Intensity of pain and quality of life of patients were assessed using the numerical rating scale and Short-Form Health Survey. CVC was inserted for 36 males and 19 females, all of whom had a mean age of 58.5±15 years, and the mean duration of the open heart surgery was 8±3.5 hours. The mean central venous pressure catheter life span was 14.6 days. No cases of recurrent effusion and complication were reported. The technical success rate of procedure was 100%. Intensity of pain and quality of life of patients had improved during follow-up. CVC insertion is a safe and effective technique for the management of pericardial effusion in patients after open heart surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controversial issues in the management of pericardial diseases.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Management of pericardial effusion.

            Pericardial effusion is a common finding in clinical practice either as incidental finding or manifestation of a systemic or cardiac disease. The spectrum of pericardial effusions ranges from mild asymptomatic effusions to cardiac tamponade. The aetiology is varied (infectious, neoplastic, autoimmune, metabolic, and drug-related), being tuberculosis the leading cause of pericardial effusions in developing countries and all over the world, while concurrent HIV infection may have an important promoting role in this setting. Management is guided by the haemodynamic impact, size, presence of inflammation (i.e. pericarditis), associated medical conditions, and the aetiology whenever possible. Pericardiocentesis is mandatory for cardiac tamponade and when a bacterial or neoplastic aetiology is suspected. Pericardial biopsy is generally reserved for cases with recurrent cardiac tamponade or persistence without a defined aetiology, especially when a bacterial or neoplastic aetiology is suspected and cannot be assessed by other conventional and less invasive means. A true isolated effusion may not require a specific treatment if the patient is asymptomatic, but large ones are at risk of progression to cardiac tamponade (up to one third). Pericardiocentesis alone may be curative for large effusions, but recurrences are also common and pericardiectomy or less invasive options (i.e. pericardial window) should be considered with recurrent cardiac tamponade or symptomatic pericardial effusion (either circumferential or loculated). The aim of this paper was to summarize and critically evaluate current knowledge on the management of pericardial effusion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Etiologic diagnosis of 204 pericardial effusions.

              The etiologic evaluation of pericardial effusion is frequently unsuccessful when noninvasive methods are used. To determine the cause of the current episode, all patients with echographically identified pericardial effusion from May 1998 to December 2002 underwent noninvasive diagnostic testing of blood, throat, and stool samples. Patients with postpericardiotomy syndrome were excluded. To analyze the value of our tests, we tested randomly selected blood donors as negative controls. Among 204 included patients, 107 (52.4%) had a final etiologic diagnosis: the etiology of 52 was highly suspected at first examination and later confirmed (thyroid deficiency, 5 cases; systemic lupus erythematous, 7; rheumatoid arthritis, 7; scleroderma, 3; cancer, 25; and renal insufficiency, 5). A definite etiologic diagnosis was made in 11 patients from pericardial fluid analysis (cancer, 5 cases; tuberculosis, 3; Streptococcus pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii, and Actinomyces, 1 case each). Among 141 patients considered to have idiopathic pericarditis, 44 (32.1%) gained an etiologic diagnosis by our systematic testing strategy. This included serologic evaluation of serum (Coxiella burnetii, 10 cases; Bartonella quintana, 1; Legionella pneumophila, 1; Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 4; influenza virus, 1), viral culture of throat swabs (enterovirus, 8 cases; and adenovirus, 1), high-level antinuclear antibodies (>1/400, 3 cases), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (15 abnormal results). Antibodies to Toxoplasma and cytomegalovirus, enterovirus recovered from rectal swabs, and low-level antinuclear antibodies were seen with equal frequency in patients and controls. Using our evaluation strategy, the number of pericardial effusions classified as idiopathic was less than in other series. Systematic testing for Q fever, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, thyroid abnormalities, and antinuclear antibodies, accompanied by viral throat cultures, frequently enabled us to diagnose diseases not initially suspected in patients with pericardial effusion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2016
                31 October 2016
                : 9
                : 887-892
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Research Development Unit (CRDU), Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kowsar Hospital
                [2 ]Nursing Care Research Center
                [3 ]Cancer Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Mohammad Forozeshfard, Cancer Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, No. 6, 13 Alley, Abouzar Street, Moalem Square, Semnan City, Semnan Province 250, Iran, Tel/fax +98 23 3365 4177, Email mff45@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                jpr-9-887
                10.2147/JPR.S116483
                5096756
                © 2016 Ghods et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article