4.6 Review

Post-pericardiotomy syndrome: insights into neglected postoperative issues

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 505-514

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab449

关键词

Pericardial effusion; Cardiac surgery complications; Post-pericardiotomy syndrome; Post-cardiac injury syndrome; Pericarditis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pericardial effusion is a common complication after cardiac surgery, often underestimated in clinical practice. Limited knowledge on the pathogenesis and epidemiology of post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS) highlights the need for larger studies to identify high-risk patients for preventive strategies. Research on anti-inflammatory drugs for treatment shows conflicting evidence, with colchicine showing promising results for prevention.
OBJECTIVES Pericardial effusion is a common complication after cardiac surgery, both isolated and in post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), a condition in which pleuropericardial damage triggers both a local and a systemic inflammatory/immune response. The goal of this review was to present a complete picture of PPS and pericardial complications after cardiac surgery, highlighting available evidence and gaps in knowledge. METHODS A literature review was performed that included relevant prospective and retrospective studies on the subject. RESULTS PPS occurs frequently and is associated with elevated morbidity and significantly increased hospital stays and costs. Nevertheless, PPS is often underestimated in clinical practice, and knowledge of its pathogenesis and epidemiology is limited. Several anti-inflammatory drugs have been investigated for treatment but with conflicting evidence. Colchicine demonstrated encouraging results for prevention. CONCLUSIONS Wider adoption of standardized diagnostic criteria to correctly define PPS and start early treatment is needed. Larger studies are necessary to better identify high-risk patients who might benefit from preventive strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据