In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion with and Without Malignancy.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Ju Young Bae, Dae Yong Park, Soumya Banna, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Amr Saleh, Mamas A Mamas, Robert L McNamara, Michael G Nanna, John F Setaro, Luke K Kim, S Elissa Altin
{"title":"In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Pericardiocentesis for Pericardial Effusion with and Without Malignancy.","authors":"Ju Young Bae, Dae Yong Park, Soumya Banna, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Amr Saleh, Mamas A Mamas, Robert L McNamara, Michael G Nanna, John F Setaro, Luke K Kim, S Elissa Altin","doi":"10.3390/curroncol32090514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Despite the high prevalence of malignant pericardial effusions (MPEs), the differences in mortality between those undergoing pericardiocentesis for MPE versus non-malignancy pericardial effusions (NMPEs) are not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we aim to compare clinical outcomes following pericardiocentesis among patients with MPE and NMPE. <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify all hospitalizations during which pericardiocentesis was performed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 (total <i>n</i> = 174,776,205). This cohort was further stratified based on the presence or absence of malignancy. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition (categorized as non-home discharges), length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. <b>Results</b>: A total of 85,125 patients with pericardial effusions undergoing pericardiocentesis were identified. Patients with an MPE (<i>n</i> = 24,740) were younger and more likely to have a history of malnutrition, prior radiation, palliative care treatments, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders compared to those with an NMPE (<i>n</i> = 60,385). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy (40.3%) in patients with an MPE requiring pericardiocentesis. The in-hospital mortality following pericardiocentesis was 11.8% in patients with malignancy and 8.2% in patients without (odds ratio (OR) for mortality 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-1.68, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, esophageal cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia were associated with a significantly increased risk of death during the same admission. Non-home discharge, length of stay, and total hospitalization cost were marginally greater in those with an MPE. <b>Conclusions</b>: In patients undergoing pericardiocentesis, those with an MPE had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with an NMPE. Additionally, the MPE group had a marginally longer length of stay and incurred higher total hospital costs. Further research is warranted to explore optimal treatment strategies for MPEs, particularly in patients with a limited life expectancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"32 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32090514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the high prevalence of malignant pericardial effusions (MPEs), the differences in mortality between those undergoing pericardiocentesis for MPE versus non-malignancy pericardial effusions (NMPEs) are not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we aim to compare clinical outcomes following pericardiocentesis among patients with MPE and NMPE. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify all hospitalizations during which pericardiocentesis was performed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 (total n = 174,776,205). This cohort was further stratified based on the presence or absence of malignancy. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included discharge disposition (categorized as non-home discharges), length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. Results: A total of 85,125 patients with pericardial effusions undergoing pericardiocentesis were identified. Patients with an MPE (n = 24,740) were younger and more likely to have a history of malnutrition, prior radiation, palliative care treatments, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders compared to those with an NMPE (n = 60,385). Lung cancer was the most common malignancy (40.3%) in patients with an MPE requiring pericardiocentesis. The in-hospital mortality following pericardiocentesis was 11.8% in patients with malignancy and 8.2% in patients without (odds ratio (OR) for mortality 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-1.68, p < 0.001). Lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, esophageal cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia were associated with a significantly increased risk of death during the same admission. Non-home discharge, length of stay, and total hospitalization cost were marginally greater in those with an MPE. Conclusions: In patients undergoing pericardiocentesis, those with an MPE had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with an NMPE. Additionally, the MPE group had a marginally longer length of stay and incurred higher total hospital costs. Further research is warranted to explore optimal treatment strategies for MPEs, particularly in patients with a limited life expectancy.

经皮心包穿刺治疗有和无恶性心包积液患者的住院死亡率。
背景:尽管恶性心包积液(MPEs)的发病率很高,但因恶性心包积液(MPE)和非恶性心包积液(NMPEs)进行心包穿刺的患者死亡率的差异尚未得到很好的表征。为了解决这一知识差距,我们的目标是比较MPE和NMPE患者心包穿刺后的临床结果。方法:对美国国家住院患者样本(NIS)进行回顾性分析,以确定2016年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间进行心包穿刺术的所有住院病例(总n = 174,776,205)。该队列根据是否存在恶性肿瘤进一步分层。研究的主要终点是住院死亡率。次要结局包括出院处理(分类为非居家出院)、住院时间和总住院费用。结果:共有85125例心包积液患者行心包穿刺。与NMPE患者(n = 60,385)相比,MPE患者(n = 24,740)更年轻,更有可能有营养不良史、既往放疗、姑息治疗和不复苏(DNR)订单。肺癌是需要心包穿刺的MPE患者中最常见的恶性肿瘤(40.3%)。恶性肿瘤患者心包穿刺后的住院死亡率为11.8%,无恶性肿瘤患者为8.2%(死亡率优势比(OR)为1.50(95%可信区间[CI]: 1.34-1.68, p < 0.001)。肺癌、非霍奇金淋巴瘤、食道癌、卵巢癌和白血病在同一住院期间的死亡风险显著增加。非家庭出院、住院时间和总住院费用在MPE患者中略高。结论:在接受心包穿刺术的患者中,MPE患者的住院死亡率明显高于NMPE患者。此外,MPE组住院时间稍长,住院总费用较高。需要进一步的研究来探索mps的最佳治疗策略,特别是对于预期寿命有限的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信