Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.317

Redefining Effusive-Constrictive Pericarditis with Echocardiography  

van der Bijl, Pieter (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital)
Herbst, Philip (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital)
Doubell, Anton F. (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging / v.24, no.4, 2016 , pp. 317-323 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is traditionally diagnosed by using the expensive and invasive technique of direct pressure measurements in the pericardial space and the right atrium. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of echocardiography in tuberculous ECP. Methods: Intrapericardial and right atrial pressures were measured pre- and post-pericardiocentesis, and right ventricular and left ventricular pressures were measured post-pericardiocentesis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusions. Echocardiography was performed post-pericardiocentesis. Traditional, pressure-based diagnostic criteria were compared with post-pericardiocentesis systolic discordance and echocardiographic evidence of constriction. Results: Thirty-two patients with tuberculous pericardial disease were included. Sixteen had ventricular discordance (invasively measured), 16 had ECP as measured by intrapericardial and right atrial invasive pressure measurements and 17 had ECP determined echocardiographically. The sensitivity and specificity of pressure-guided measurements (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP were both 56%. The positive and negative predictive values were both 56%. The sensitivity of echocardiography (compared with discordance) for the diagnosis of ECP was 81% and the specificity 75%, while the positive and the negative predictive values were 76% and 80%, respectively. Conclusion: Echocardiography shows a better diagnostic performance than invasive, pressure-based measurements for the diagnosis of ECP when both these techniques are compared with the gold standard of invasively measured systolic discordance.
Keywords
Effusive-constrictive pericarditis; Tuberculosis; Echocardiography; Hydrostatic pressure measurements;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Sagrista-Sauleda J, Angel J, Sanchez A, Permanyer-Miralda G, Soler-Soler J. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med 2004;350:469-75.   DOI
2 Ntsekhe M, Matthews K, Syed FF, Deffur A, Badri M, Commerford PJ, Gersh BJ, Wilkinson KA, Wilkinson RJ, Mayosi BM. Prevalence, hemodynamics, and cytokine profile of effusive-constrictive pericarditis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusion. PLoS One 2013;8:e77532.   DOI
3 Hurrell DG, Nishimura RA, Higano ST, Appleton CP, Danielson GK, Holmes DR Jr, Tajik AJ. Value of dynamic respiratory changes in left and right ventricular pressures for the diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis. Circulation 1996;93:2007-13.   DOI
4 Badri M, Wilson D, Wood R. Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on incidence of tuberculosis in South Africa: a cohort study. Lancet 2002;359:2059-64.   DOI
5 Syed FF, Ntsekhe M, Mayosi BM, Oh JK. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. Heart Fail Rev 2013;18:277-87.   DOI
6 Hancock EW. A clearer view of effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med 2004;350:435-7.   DOI
7 Hancock EW. Subacute effusive-constrictive pericarditis. Circulation 1971;43:183-92.   DOI
8 Cameron J, Oesterle SN, Baldwin JC, Hancock EW. The etiologic spectrum of constrictive pericarditis. Am Heart J 1987;113(2 Pt 1):354-60.   DOI
9 Ntsekhe M, Shey Wiysonge C, Commerford PJ, Mayosi BM. The prevalence and outcome of effusive constrictive pericarditis: a systematic review of the literature. Cardiovasc J Afr 2012;23:281-5.   DOI
10 Zagol B, Minderman D, Munir A, D'Cruz I. Effusive constrictive pericarditis: 2D, 3D echocardiography and MRI imaging. Echocardiography 2007;24:1110-4.   DOI
11 Oh JK, Tajik AJ, Appleton CP, Hatle LK, Nishimura RA, Seward JB. Preload reduction to unmask the characteristic Doppler features of constrictive pericarditis. A new observation. Circulation 1997;95:796-9.   DOI
12 Boonyaratavej S, Oh JK, Tajik AJ, Appleton CP, Seward JB. Comparison of mitral inflow and superior vena cava Doppler velocities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and constrictive pericarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:2043-8.   DOI
13 Dal-Bianco JP, Sengupta PP, Mookadam F, Chandrasekaran K, Tajik AJ, Khandheria BK. Role of echocardiography in the diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009;22:24-33; quiz 103-4.   DOI
14 Reuter H, Burgess L, van Vuuren W, Doubell A. Diagnosing tuberculous pericarditis. QJM 2006;99:827-39.   DOI
15 Talreja DR, Nishimura RA, Oh JK, Holmes DR. Constrictive pericarditis in the modern era: novel criteria for diagnosis in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:315-9.   DOI
16 Shabetai R. The pericardium. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers;2003.
17 Nagueh SF, Kopelen HA, Zoghbi WA. Relation of mean right atrial pressure to echocardiographic and Doppler parameters of right atrial and right ventricular function. Circulation 1996;93:1160-9.   DOI
18 Kusunose K, Dahiya A, Popovic ZB, Motoki H, Alraies MC, Zurick AO, Bolen MA, Kwon DH, Flamm SD, Klein AL. Biventricular mechanics in constrictive pericarditis comparison with restrictive cardiomyopathy and impact of pericardiectomy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:399-406.   DOI