PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Koprivanac, Marijan
AU  - Bauza, Karolis
AU  - Smedira, Nicholas
AU  - Pettersson, Gosta
AU  - Unai, Shinya
AU  - Barrios, Paola
AU  - Oh, Nicholas
AU  - Stembal, Filip
AU  - Lara-Erazo, Valentina
AU  - Soltesz, Edward G.
AU  - Bakaeen, Faisal G.
AU  - Elgharably, Haytham
AU  - Desai, Milind
AU  - Wang, Tom K.
AU  - Houghtaling, Penny L
AU  - Svensson, Lars G.
AU  - Gillinov, Marc
AU  - McCurry, Kenneth
AU  - Johnston, Douglas R.
AU  - Blackstone, Eugene H.
AU  - Klein, Allan
AU  - Tong, Michael Z.
TI  - Radical Pericardiectomy and Use of Cardiopulmonary Bypass for Constrictive Pericarditis
AID  - 10.1101/2024.06.04.24308462
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.06.04.24308462
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308462.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308462.full
AB  - Background Pericardiectomy is definitive treatment for constrictive pericarditis. However, extent of resection (radical versus partial) and use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are debated.Objectives To determine the association of extent of pericardial resection and use of CPB with outcomes.Methods From January 2000 to January 2022, 565 patients with constrictive pericarditis underwent radical (n=445, 314 [71%] on CPB) or partial (n=120, 67 [56%] on CPB) pericardiectomy at Cleveland Clinic. Outcomes stratified by extent of pericardial resection and use of CPB were compared after propensity-score matching.Results Both radical pericardiectomy and CPB use (67% [381/565]) increased over time. Among 88 propensity-matched pairs (73% of possible matches), immediate postoperative cardiac index increased (P<0.001) in both groups by a median of 1.0 L•min-1•m-2. There were no significant differences between radical versus partial resection groups in occurrence of reoperation for bleeding (2.3%, [2/88] vs. 0, P=.50). Median postoperative hospital length of stay was 10 versus 8.5 days (P=.02). Operative mortality was 9.1% (8/88) versus 6.8% (6/88) (P=.58). 10-year survival was 54% versus 41%, with a higher propensity-adjusted hazard ratio after partial resection (1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.1).Conclusions When surgical intervention is deemed necessary, radical — rather than partial — resection for constrictive pericarditis can be performed with low surgical mortality and morbidity. Radical pericardiectomy can be accomplished on CPB and results in better long-term survival.CLINICAL PERSPECTIVESPatients with constrictive pericarditis require a multidisciplinary approach involving primarily a cardiologist and cardiac surgeon, and other disciplines like gastroenterology since liver cirrhosis from increased central venous pressure and congestion is common, or immunology for evaluation of possible autoimmune etiology.Communication is critical in managing patient expectations after pericardiectomy, especially linking etiology to short- and long-term outcomes in this complex patient population.Radical pericardiectomy should be the gold standard for treating patients with constrictive pericarditis.Routine use of cardiopulmonary bypass is safe and enables the radical pericardiectomy surgery and should be recommended in the guidelines.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported in part by the Drs. Sidney and Becca Fleischer Heart and Vascular Education Chair (EHB).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Clinical data were extracted prospectively for quality assurance. Cleveland Clinic's Institutional Review Board approved use of these data for research, with patient consent waived (IRB #5001; approved 2/26/2021).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesClinical data were extracted prospectively for quality assurance. Cleveland Clinic's Institutional Review Board approved use of these data for research, with patient consent waived (IRB #5001; approved 2/26/2021). Data can be provided for quality assurance and review with appropriate protocol, processes and mutual agreement.COPDchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCPBcardiopulmonary bypassECMOextracorporeal membrane oxygenationIABPintra-aortic balloon pumpIVCinferior vena cavaLVADleft ventricular assist deviceSVCsuperior vena cava