Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:26:28.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Single center experience of pediatric percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

Christopher Herron
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA
Thomas J. Forbes
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA
Daisuke Kobayashi*
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daisuke Kobayashi, Division of Cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, 3901 Beaubien Blvd, Detroit, MI48201-2119, USA. Tel: +1 (313) 745-5481; Fax: +1 (313) 993-0894. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background:

Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy is a percutaneous procedure that creates a window in the parietal pericardium by balloon dilation. The use of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy has not been reported well in children.

Objectives:

The objective of this study was to describe the single centre experience of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy in children.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study to describe all the children aged <20 years undergoing percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy during an 18-year period (2001–2019). Patient characteristics, technical and ultimate procedural success, and repeat interventions were collected.

Results:

A total of 13 percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy’s were performed in 11 children at the median age of 12 years (range 1.8–19). The etiologies of pericardial effusion were post-pericardiotomy syndrome (n = 4), restrictive cardiomyopathy (n = 1), autoimmune diseases (n = 3), malignancy (n = 2), and idiopathic (n = 1). Two patients received two percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy. The technical success of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy was 100% with no acute adverse events (balloon rupture or local bleeding). Five (45%) required re-intervention and ultimately three required a surgical pericardial window 6 to 35 days after the percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy. As a result, ultimate procedural success rate was 73% (8/11).

Conclusion:

Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy was performed safely with high technical success in children. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy may be considered for recurrent and persistent pericardial effusion, before considering a surgical pericardial window.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ziskind, AA, Pearce, AC, Lemmon, CC, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy for the treatment of cardiac tamponade and large pericardial effusions: description of technique and report of the first 50 cases. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 21: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertrand, O, Legrand, V, Kulbertus, H. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy: a case report and analysis of mechanism of action. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996; 38: 180182.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palacios, IF, Tuzcu, EM, Ziskind, AA, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardial window for patients with malignant pericardial effusion and tamponade. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991; 22: 244249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-García, J, Jiménez-Valero, S, Moreno, R, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy as the initial and definitive treatment for malignant pericardial effusion. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2013; 66: 357363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irazusta, FJ, Jiménez-Valero, S, Gemma, D, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy: treatment of choice in patients with advanced oncological disease and severe pericardial effusion. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017; 18: S14-S17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhardwaj, R, Gharib, W, Gharib, W, et al. Evaluation of safety and feasibility of percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy in hemodynamically significant pericardial effusion (review of 10-years experience in single center). J Interv Cardiol. 2015; 28: 409414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thanopoulos, BD, Georgakopoulos, D, Tsaousis, GS, et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy for the treatment of large, nonmalignant pericardial effusions in children: immediate and medium-term results. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997; 40: 97100.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, TJ, Horenstein, SM, Vincent, JA. Balloon pericardiotomy for recurrent pericardial effusions following fontan revision. Pediatr Cardiol. 2001; 22: 527529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irugal Bandara, S, Karunarathne, WDW, Jayaweera, E et al. Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy in a child with recurrent pericardial effusions due to systemic lupus erythematosus. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health 2013; 42: 163165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisch, B, Ristić, AD, Pankuweit, S, et al. Percutaneous therapy in pericardial diseases. Cardiol Clin. 2017; 35: 567588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, LT, Chow, WH. Mechanism of pericardial window creation by balloon pericardiotomy. Am J Cardiol. 1993 Dec 1;72:13211322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jneid, H, Ziskind, AA, Palacios, IF. Pericardial interventions. In: Topol, E, Teirstein, P (eds). Textbook of Interventional Cardiology, 7th ed. Elsevier; 2017: 861873.Google Scholar
Swanson, N, Mirza, I, Wijesinghe, N, et al. Primary percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy for malignant pericardial effusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 71: 504507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed