악성 심낭삼출(Malignant Pericardial Effusion) 치료를 위한 경피적 풍선 심낭창 조성술 (Percutaneous Balloon Pericardial Window Formation)의 역할

Abstract

Background There are several ways to treat for recurrent pericardial effussion and cardiac tamponade due to malignancy. They are repeated pericardiocentesis, pericardial instillation of sclerosing and chemotherapeutic agents, surgical creation of a pericardial window and transthoracic pericardiectomy. Surgical techniques are usually effective but bear a significant morbidity and mortality especially in chronic debilitating cancer patients. So percutaneous balloon pericardial window as an alternative to surgery in these patients.

Methods After pericardiocentesis was performed, a 0.035 inch J-tip guidewire was advanced into the pericardial space. And a pigtail catheter was advanced over the wire. A moderate amount of pericardial fluid were removed. A nd then the pigtail catheter was withdrawn and 8F sheath was inserted. A20mm diameter, 4cm long(Single balloon method) or two 10mm diameter, 4cm long balloon dilating catheter(Double balloon medium) was advanced over the wire to straddle the parietal pericardial border though the sheath. Several inflations of the balloon with a solution containing 50% radiographic contrast medium were performed until disappearance of the balloon waist. After balloon dilation, contrast medium from the pericardial space to subcutaneous tisse suggesting successful PBPWF. Single ballon method was employed in 4 patients and Dould balloon method in 2 patients.

Result We performed percutaneous balloon pericardial window formation in 6 patiemts with malignant pericardial effusion. We did percutaneous balloon pericardial window formation successfully in 5 patients and failed due to adhesion of parietal pericardium in 1 patient. One patient developed recurrent pericardial effusion with tamponade at a mean follow-up of 11.49.6 months(1.5-26 months).

Conclusion These results suggest that PBPWF is an alternative method less invasive than subxiphoid surgical windowing, espesially in critically ill patients with recurrent malignant pericardial effussion. It carries less risks and has more constant effect than repeated pericardiocentesis.