Long-term results of radical pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis in Korean population

The extent of pericardiectomy is an important issue in constrictive pericarditis but its impact on long-term outcomes has been rarely reported. We compared long-term results of radical pericardiectomy with conventional phrenic to phrenic pericardiectomy. Ninety patients who underwent pericardiectomi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 2019-02, Vol.14 (1), p.32-32, Article 32
Main Authors: Choi, Min Suk, Jeong, Dong Seop, Oh, Jae K, Chang, Sung-A, Park, Sung-Ji, Chung, Suryeun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambulatory care facilities
Blood pressure
Cardiac output
Constrictive pericarditis
Echocardiography
Health aspects
Heart
Medical prognosis
Mortality
Nerves
Pericardiectomy
Pericarditis
Radical groups
Regurgitation
Surgery
Survival
Systolic pressure
Thickening
Thoracic surgery
Tuberculosis
Ventricle
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The extent of pericardiectomy is an important issue in constrictive pericarditis but its impact on long-term outcomes has been rarely reported. We compared long-term results of radical pericardiectomy with conventional phrenic to phrenic pericardiectomy. Ninety patients who underwent pericardiectomies between February 1995 and April 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. They were classified into conventional (n = 37) and radical (n = 53) groups according to pericardiectomy being performed anterior or posterior to the phrenic nerves, respectively. The follow-up duration at outpatient clinic was 37.6 (11.7, 86.6) months and the survival data until 91.6 (54.5, 147.0) months were obtained. The last echocardiographies were done at 22.4 (4.35, 60.85) months. The early mortality rate was 4.4% (4/90). They all belonged to the conventional group and died of low cardiac output syndrome. The survival rate was higher in the radical group (P = .032, 74.7 ± 9.2% versus 50.4 ± 11.9% in 20 years). NYHA class of both groups had recovered until the last follow-up but the radical group showed better recovery (P 
ISSN:1749-8090
1749-8090
DOI:10.1186/s13019-019-0845-7