Purpose: In the treatment of the postsurgical pericardial effusions via pericardiocentesis, determination of the puncture site might be difficult. Contrast echocardiography may not be efficient due to surgical artefacts and pulmonary problems and therefore may lead to inaccurate evaluation. Alternative imaging methods might be helpful to perform the pericardiocentesis with decreased complications.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the patients who had undergone pericardiocentesis in our department from January 2008 through April 2018. The procedure was performed in slightly semi-seated position with the guidance of the echocardiography and fluoroscopy. Following the catheterization, percutaneous drainage was performed.
Results: There were 63 patients needed intervention due to pericardial effusion. 67% of the patients were using warfarin and the next patients were using acetyl salicylic acid and/or clopidogrel. All effusions were in the posterolateral localization. The mean volume of aspirated pericardial fluid was 404 ± 173 mL (150-980 mL). Control echocardiograms showed that almost all fluid was drained in all patients and there were no procedural or follow-up complications.
Conclusion: In the treatment of postoperative pericardial effusion, fluoroscopy is an alternative method to locate the catheter accurately in challenging situations following cardiac surgery. Thus, procedural risk minimizes and drainage of pericardial fluid is performed safely.
Keywords: fluoroscopy; pericardial effusion; pericardiocentesis.