| |
|
Explore These Recent Publications About Pericardial
Effusion and Tamponade
Brenda
Shelton, RN, MS, CCRN, AOCN®
Finksburg, MD
sheltbr@jhmi.edu
In this issue
of the newsletter, Catherine Sargent, RN, MS, AOCN®, carefully
evaluated a recently published article describing the clinical significance
and development of pulsus paradoxus (see “Article
Provides a Comprehensive Review of Pulsus Paradoxus in Cardiac Tamponade”).
This unique and key symptom of progressive and clinically significant
pericardial effusion is rapidly becoming difficult to assess because
of our dependence upon automated blood pressure devices in patient blood
pressure monitoring. In addition, although it is a classic presentation
in cardiac tamponade, pulsus paradoxus also may be present in patients
with chronic obstructive lung disease or mechanical ventilatory support
and may be absent in patients with severe shock, in acute myocardial
infarction with pericardial adhesions, or with right ventricular hypertrophy
(Spodick, 2003). For these reasons, I summarized some additional information
and included a bibliography of recently published information about
pericardial effusion and tamponade.
Risk Factors
Patients with cancer at greatest risk for development of pericardial
effusion are those with tumors within the chest. Chest tumors may cause
venous or lymphatic obstruction that affects pericardial fluid dynamics
or, in rare cases, actually metastasizes to the pericardium. The most
common malignant association with pericardial effusion is lung cancer,
followed by breast cancer and malignant lymphomas. Excess capillary
permeability as seen with congestive heart failure, hypothyroidism,
systemic lupus erythematosus, uremia, leukemia, or certain antineoplastic
agents (e.g., cytosine arabinoside, interleukin-2) also may cause excess
fluid in the pericardial sac (Flounders, 2003). Infectious or hemorrhagic
etiologies are uncommon but may occur in the myelosuppressed patient
(Atar, Chiu, Forrester, & Siegel, 1999; Flounders). HIV disease
has been associated with a significant risk for pericardial effusion,
particularly related to infection (Gowda et al., 2003). Patients with
effusions related to therapy rather than the malignancy itself have
a better prognosis for long-term survival (Lindenberger, Kjellberg,
Karlsson, & Wranne, 2003). Even with treatment, survival is estimated
at 89 days for patients with malignant effusions; however, 95% of patients
experience symptomatic relief of symptoms with aggressive treatment
(Lindenberger et al.).
Clinical Presentation
Many patients with cancer do not exhibit pericarditis and, instead,
only develop progressive pericardial effusion that can lead to cardiac
tamponade if untreated. The accumulation of fluid in the pericardial
sac leads to more positive intrapericardial pressures that impede the
return of the lower pressure venous blood. When venous return is compromised
slowly over a long period of time, the primary clinical feature is right
heart failure. This is the most common presentation for patients with
cancer. Venous congestion manifested as dyspnea, edema, or elevated
jugular venous pressure, and hepatosplenomegaly is the typical clinical
picture. Other common findings include muffled heart sounds, a lateral
shift in the point of maximal impulse, and tachycardia. If more rapidly
developing or in its late stages of effusion leading to tamponade, arterial
hypotension and frank perfusion deficits exist and patients present
with cyanosis, hypoxemia, cool and clammy extremities, oliguria, and
mental status changes. If pericardial effusion becomes so severe that
it prevents all venous return of blood and causes cardiac arrest, it
often presents as an electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm without a pulse
termed “pulseless electrical activity.” This occurs because the myocardial
pump fails rather than the conduction pathway. This results in normal
electrical conduction with presence of an ECG waveform but absence of
contraction and cardiac output evidenced by the lack of a pulse.
Diagnostic Confirmation
When pericardial effusion is suspected, the gold standard for diagnosis
is an echocardiogram. This shows fluid within the pericardial sac, hypotonic
wall motion, and decreased ventricular filling. This is illustrated
in Spodick’s (2003) recent article, as well as at the E-chocardiography
Journal’s Web site (www2.umdnj.edu/~shindler/abc.html). While awaiting the
specialists who can obtain an echocardiogram, other rapid bedside diagnostic
tests such as a chest x-ray and a 12-lead ECG can be obtained and may
show distinctive abnormalities indicating possible pericardial effusion.
These changes are depicted in articles by Lau, Civitello, Hernandez,
and Coulter (2002) and Gentlesk and McCabe (2001). The chest x-ray often
shows an enlarged cardiac silhouette (usually greater than half the
chest width) and a widened mediastinum (described as the water bottle
silhouette) when more than 250 ml is present in the pericardial sac
(Goyle & Walling, 2002). See the eMedicine.com site to review a
typical chest x-ray finding with pericardial effusion (click here).
The 12-lead ECG may show low-voltage or consistent ST elevation across
all leads (see the photographs in Gentlesk and McCabe’s article). The
PR segment is depressed, and the ST segment elevation shows an upward
concave appearance nicknamed the “smiling face” ST (Goyle & Walling).
Unlike myocardial infarction, the ECG lacks T wave inversions or reciprocal
changes (Goyle & Walling). In their article, Goyle and Walling included
pictures of these ECG changes. Another less frequent but more specific
observation is the presence of “electrical alternans” where Q waves
alternate upward and downward deflection. This occurs because the heart
“floats” in relation to the leads recording its electricity (Goyle &
Walling), which can be seen at ECG Library’s Web site (www.ecglibrary.com/ecghome.html).
Management Strategies
A pericardial effusion may be asymptomatic or result in cardiac arrest.
For patients with small or asymptomatic effusions, symptomatic support
and correction of the etiology of effusion are priorities. This may
involve implementation of antineoplastic therapies or correction of
congestive or capillary permeability conditions. Nursing goals include
alleviation of pain or dyspnea and reduction of oxygen demands. If possible,
patients should be on a cardiac monitor that includes ST segment monitoring.
In addition, they should be on complete bedrest and receive oxygen therapy
to maximize their oxygen saturation.
For patients with clinically significant pericardial effusion and impending
cardiac tamponade, emergent removal of fluid from the pericardium is
necessary. This can be accomplished by needle pericardiocentesis, balloon
pericardiotomy, pericardial catheter drainage, or performance of a surgical
pericardial window. Until the appropriate technology is available to
remove pericardial fluid, massive volumes of IV fluids are administered
rapidly in an attempt to raise the venous pressure above the pericardial
pressure so that some returning blood can enter the heart and be pumped
out into the arterial circulation. This excess fluid can be diuresed
easily from the vascular space after definitive pericardial drainage
is performed. The urgency of the patient’s clinical symptoms, the presence
of other treatable disorders (e.g., concomitant pleural effusions),
and physician preference may guide the treatment decision. Key nursing
care for these management strategies are included in Table 1. The pericardial catheter is a unique management
strategy used most commonly by patients with cancer. It resembles a
nephrostomy tube but is made of a less flexible material. The tip is
curled in the classic pigtail to help hold it in place because it is
difficult to suture (see Figure 1). Few references are available to guide nurses
in the care of these catheters. A summary of the clinical protocol used
at Johns Hopkins Hospital is included within Table 1 to outline nursing
care of patients having pericardial drainage interventions.
References
Atar, S., Chiu, J., Forrester, J.S., & Siegel, R.J.
(1999). Bloody pericardial effusion in patients with cardiac tamponade.
Is the cause cancerous, tuberculous, or iatrogenic in the 1990s? Chest,
116, 1564–1569.
Flounders, J.A. (2003). Cardiovascular emergencies: Pericardial effusion
and cardiac tamponade. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30(2). Retrieved
December 20, 2003, from http://www.ons.org
Gentlesk, P.J., & McCabe, J. (2001). Pericarditis, acute. E-medicine
Journal, 2(11). Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1781.htm
Gowda, R.M., Khan, I.A., Mehta, N.J., Gowda, M.R., Sacchi, T.J., &
Vasavada, B.C. (2003). Cardiac tamponade in patients with human immunodeficiency
virus disease. Angiology, 54, 469–474.
Goyle, K.K., & Walling, A.D. (2002). Diagnosing pericarditis. American
Family Physician, 66, 1695–1702.
Johns Hopkins Hospital. (2001). Johns Hopkins nursing practice manual:
Pericardial catheter. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Lau, T.K., Civitello, A.B., Hernandez, A., & Coulter, S.A. (2002).
Cardiac tamponade and electrical alternans. Texas Heart Institute
Journal, 29(1). Retrieved January 1, 2004, from http://www.texasheartinstitute.org/lau291.html
Lindenberger, M., Kjellberg, M., Karlsson, E., & Wranne, B. (2003).
Pericardiocentesis guided by 2-D echocardiography: The method of choice
for treatment of pericardial effusion. Journal of Internal Medicine,
253, 411–417.
Spodick, D.H. (2003). Acute cardiac tamponade. New England Journal
of Medicine, 349, 684–689.
Bibliography
Brown, D.V. (2002). Dicrotic pulse in pericardial tamponade. Journal
of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 16, 742–745.
Campione, A., Cacchiarelli, M., Ghiribelli, C., Caloni, V., D’Agata,
A., & Gotti, G. (2002). Which treatment in pericardial effusion?
Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 43, 735–739.
Dosios, T., Theakos, N., Angouras, D., & Asimacopoulos, P. (2003).
Risk factors affecting survival of patients with pericardial effusion
submitted to subxiphoid pericardiostomy. Chest, 124, 242–246.
Hawley, J., Dreher, H.M., & Vasso, M. (2003). Under pressure: Treating
cardiac tamponade. Identify this potentially fatal complication early
and intervene appropriately. Nursing Management, 34(2), 44D,
44F, 44H.
Hsu, L., Scavee, C., Jais, P., Hocini, M., & Haissaguerre, M. (2003).
Transcardiac pericardiocentesis: An emergency life-saving technique
for cardiac tamponade. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology,
14, 1001–1003.
Kirsner, K. (2003). Cancer: New therapies and new approaches to recurring
problems. AANA Journal, 71(1), 55–62.
Knoop, T., & Willenberg, K. (1999). Cardiac tamponade. Seminars
in Oncology Nursing, 15, 168–173.
Retter, A.S. (2002). Pericardial disease in the oncology patient. Heart
Disease, 4(6), 387–391.
Shelton, B.K. (in press). Neoplastic cardiac tamponade. In C. Ziegfeld,
B.K. Shelton, & M. Olsen (Eds.), Manual of oncology nursing
(2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Spodick, D.H. (2003). Acute pericarditis. JAMA, 289, 1150–1158.
Strimel, W.J., & Noe, S. (2002). Pericardial effusion. E-Medicine
Journal, 3(10). Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1786.htm
Swami, A., & Spodick, D. (2003). Pulsus paradoxus in cardiac tamponade:
A pathophysiologic continuum. Clinical Cardiology, 26, 215–217.
van Steijn, J.H., Sleijfer, D.T., van der Graaf, W.T., van der Sluis,
A., & Nieboer, P. (2002). How to diagnose cardiac tamponade. Netherlands
Journal of Medicine, 60, 334–338.
Yarlagadden, C., & Hout, W.M. (2002). Cardiac tamponade. E-Medicine
Journal, 3(9). Retrieved January 1, 2004, from http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic283.htm
|
|