4.6 Article

Etiology of Pericarditis in a Prospective Cohort of 1162 Cases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 128, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.040

关键词

Etiological diagnosis; Pericarditis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Pericarditis is a common disorder that is present in various pathologies and may be the first manifestation of an underlying systemic disease. The aims of this study were to describe the different causes of infectious and noninfectious pericarditis and compare them with those in the literature. METHODS: Between May 2007 and September 2012, we prospectively evaluated a strategy using a systematic prescription of tests for the different etiological causes of pericarditis in patients with acute pericarditis who were hospitalized in the Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Department or admitted to the Emergency Department (University Hospital of Marseille). A total of 1162 patients with suspected pericarditis were included. A standardized diagnosis procedure was performed for 800 patients, and 362 had pericardiocentesis. RESULTS: Acute pericarditis was diagnosed in 933 patients. No diagnosis was established in 516 patients (55%), 197 patients suffered from postinjury syndromes, and 156 had previously known diseases that were associated with pericarditis. Our survey allowed us to relate the probable cause of pericarditis in 64 cases. An infectious etiological diagnosis was established in 53 cases. In our study, postinjury syndrome was the leading cause of pericarditis, a new diagnosis was made in 6.7% of cases, and 16% of the diagnoses were linked to a secondary, underlying disease. CONCLUSION: Using this strategy, we were able to reduce the number of idiopathic cases. In many cases, the etiologies were still identified. Long-term follow-up in the management of idiopathic pericarditis should remain of great interest for the future diagnosis of other disorders that remain hidden. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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