Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

Revision as of 20:06, 18 December 2019 by Homa Najafi (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pericarditis Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

HIV
Post MI
Dressler's syndrome
Post-pericardiotomy
Radiation
Tuberculosis
Uremia
Malignancy

Differentiating Pericarditis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Pericardial Effusion
Cardiac Tamponade
Constrictive Pericarditis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Study of Choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X-ray

Echocardiography and Ultrasound

CT scan

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Pericardiocentesis
Pericardial Window
Pericardial Stripping

Treatment Related Videos

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Pericarditis other diagnostic studies On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Google Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

CDC on Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

Pericarditis other diagnostic studies in the news

Blogs on Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

Directions to Hospitals Treating Type page name here

Risk calculators and risk factors for Pericarditis other diagnostic studies

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Homa Najafi, M.D.[2]

Overview

There are no other diagnostic studies associated with [disease name].

OR

[Diagnostic study] may be helpful in the diagnosis of [disease name]. Findings suggestive of/diagnostic of [disease name] include [finding 1], [finding 2], and [finding 3].

OR

Other diagnostic studies for [disease name] include [diagnostic study 1], which demonstrates [finding 1], [finding 2], and [finding 3], and [diagnostic study 2], which demonstrates [finding 1], [finding 2], and [finding 3].

Other Diagnostic Studies

There are no other diagnostic studies associated with [disease name].

OR

[Diagnostic study] may be helpful in the diagnosis of [disease name]. Findings suggestive of/diagnostic of [disease name] include:

  • [Finding 1]
  • [Finding 2]
  • [Finding 3]

OR

Other diagnostic studies for [disease name] include:

  • [Diagnostic study 1], which demonstrates:
    • [Finding 1]
    • [Finding 2]
    • [Finding 3]
  • [Diagnostic study 2], which demonstrates:
    • [Finding 1]
    • [Finding 2]
    • [Finding 3]

Diagnostic Pericardiocentesis

Pericardiocentesis is a relatively safe procedure when guided by echocardiography, especially when large free anterior pericardial effusion is present. Pericardial fluid should be aspirated and tested for the presence of malignant cells and tumor markers, particularly in patients with hemorrhagic effusion without preceding trauma. However, hemorrhagic pericarditis in developing countries could be due to tuberculosis. Sensitivity of cytological analysis of pericardial fluid for malignant cells was 67%, 75%, and 92% in different studies with specificity of 100%. Immunohistochemistry can be used to distinguish between the malignant cells and their possible origin.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Aspirated fluid can also be used for the following tests:

Pericardial Biopsy

If the clinical suspicion of malignancy is high, and if the results of cytology testing from the pericardiocentesis are negative, consideration should be given to performing a pericardial biopsy. This can be performed via either a subxiphoid or transthoracic pericardiostomy or alternatively by pericardioscopy. The advantages of pericardioscopy include helping to directly visualize the pericardium as well as helping to collect the biopsy sample. Pericardioscopy has an excellent sensitivity of 97%, which compares quite favorably to a blind biopsy which has a low sensitivity of 55-65%.[5][7]


References

  1. Gong Y, Sun X, Michael CW, Attal S, Williamson BA, Bedrossian CW (2003). "Immunocytochemistry of serous effusion specimens: a comparison of ThinPrep vs cell block". Diagn Cytopathol. 28 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1002/dc.10219. PMID 12508174.
  2. Mayall F, Heryet A, Manga D, Kriegeskotten A (1997). "p53 immunostaining is a highly specific and moderately sensitive marker of malignancy in serous fluid cytology". Cytopathology. 8 (1): 9–12. PMID 9068950.
  3. Atar S, Chiu J, Forrester JS, Siegel RJ (1999). "Bloody pericardial effusion in patients with cardiac tamponade: is the cause cancerous, tuberculous, or iatrogenic in the 1990s?". Chest. 116 (6): 1564–9. PMID 10593777.
  4. Wiener HG, Kristensen IB, Haubek A, Kristensen B, Baandrup U (1991). "The diagnostic value of pericardial cytology. An analysis of 95 cases". Acta Cytol. 35 (2): 149–53. PMID 2028688.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Porte HL, Janecki-Delebecq TJ, Finzi L, Métois DG, Millaire A, Wurtz AJ (1999). "Pericardoscopy for primary management of pericardial effusion in cancer patients". Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 16 (3): 287–91. PMID 10554845.
  6. Meyers DG, Meyers RE, Prendergast TW (1997). "The usefulness of diagnostic tests on pericardial fluid". Chest. 111 (5): 1213–21. PMID 9149572.
  7. Nugue O, Millaire A, Porte H, de Groote P, Guimier P, Wurtz A; et al. (1996). "Pericardioscopy in the etiologic diagnosis of pericardial effusion in 141 consecutive patients". Circulation. 94 (7): 1635–41. PMID 8840855.

Template:WH Template:WS