Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this trial, patients with tuberculous pericarditis were randomly assigned to prednisolone or placebo and to Mycobacterium indicus pranii or placebo. Neither therapy reduced the risk of the composite outcome of death, cardiac tamponade, or constrictive pericarditis. Tuberculous pericarditis is a common cause of pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, and constrictive pericarditis in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. 1 – 3 Patients with tuberculous pericarditis often have concomitant human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. 1 Despite antituberculosis therapy, pericardial drainage, or pericardiectomy, mortality and morbidity remain high. 4 Mortality is as high as 26% at 6 months but is even higher (approximately 40%) among persons with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. 5 The use of glucocorticoid therapy in patients with tuberculous pericarditis to attenuate the inflammatory response may improve outcomes and decrease the risk of death by reducing cardiac tamponade and pericardial constriction, 6 but . . .

Summary Introduction Tuberculous (TB) pericarditis carries significant mortality and morbidity rates, not only during the primary infection, but also as part of the granulomatous scar-forming fibrocalcific constrictive pericarditis so commonly associated with this disease. Numerous therapies have previously been investigated as adjuvant strategies in the prevention of pericardial constriction. Colchicine is well described in the treatment of various aetiologies of pericarditis. The aim of this research was to investigate the merit for the use of colchicine in the management of tuberculous pericarditis, specifically to prevent constrictive pericarditis. Methods This pilot study was designed as a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, control cohort study and was conducted at a secondary level hospital in the Northern Cape of South Africa between August 2013 and December 2015. Patients with a probable or definite diagnosis of TB pericarditis were included (n = 33). Study participants with pericardial effusions amenable to pericardiocentesis underwent aspiration until dryness. All patients were treated with standard TB treatment and corticosteroids in accordance with the South African Tuberculosis Treatment Guidelines. Patients were randomised to an intervention and control group using a webbased computer system that ensured assignment concealment. The intervention group received colchicine 1.0 mg per day for six weeks and the control group received a placebo for the same period. Patients were followed up with serial echocardiography for 16 weeks. The primary outcome assessed was the development of pericardial constriction. Upon completion of the research period, the blinding was unveiled and data were presented for statistical analysis. Results TB pericarditis was found exclusively in HIV-positive individuals. The incidence of pericardial constriction in our cohort was 23.8%. No demonstrable benefit with the use of colchicine was found in terms of prevention of pericardial constriction (p = 0.88, relative risk 1.07, 95% CI: 0.46–2.46). Interestingly, pericardiocentesis appeared to decrease the incidence of pericardial constriction. Conclusion Based on this research, the use of colchicine in TB pericarditis cannot be advised. Adjuvant therapy in the prevention of pericardial constriction is still being investigated and routine pericardiocentesis may prove to be beneficial in this regard.

Recurrent pericarditis (RP) occurs in 15% to 30% of patients following a first episode, despite standard treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine, and corticosteroids; many patients become dependent on corticosteroids. Rilonacept (KPL-914), an interleukin-1α and β inhibitor, is in development for the treatment of RP. RHAPSODY, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal (RW) pivotal Phase 3 trial (NCT03737110), enrolls patients 12 years or older presenting with at least a third pericarditis episode, pericarditis pain score ≥4 (11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]), and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dL at screening. After a subcutaneous loading dose (adults, 320 mg; children, 4.4 mg/kg), all patients receive blinded weekly subcutaneous rilonacept (adults, 160 mg; children, 2.2 mg/kg) during the run-in period. Patients must taper and discontinue concomitant pericarditis medications during the blinded run-in period and achieve clinical response (C-reactive protein ≤0.5 mg/dL and weekly average NRS ≤2.0 during the 7 days prior to and including the day of randomization) by end of the run-in (while on rilonacept monotherapy) to be randomized to either continued rilonacept or placebo in the RW period. Primary efficacy end point was time to adjudicated pericarditis recurrence during the RW period; secondary efficacy end points were proportion of patients maintaining clinical response, percentage of days with NRS ≤2, and percentage of patients with no-to-minimal pericarditis symptoms at week 16 of the RW period. Safety evaluations include adverse event monitoring, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. The RHAPSODY trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of rilonacept in the treatment of RP to improve outcomes and patient health-related quality of life.

Despite the monumental advances in the diagnoses and therapeutics of malignancy, several cancer patients have presented with pericardial involvement, including acute pericarditis, constrictive pericarditis, and pericardial effusion. Multiple factors can contribute to acute pericarditis, including direct metastasis to the heart, pericardial hemorrhage, infections due to immunosuppression, and cancer therapies that include chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiation. Pericardial effusion, either due to cancer invasion or cancer treatment, is one of the most common incidental findings in cancer patients, which significantly worsens morbidity and mortality. If left untreated, pericardial effusion is known to cause complications such as pericardial tamponade. Constrictive pericarditis can be due to radiation exposure, chemotherapy, or is a sequela of a previous episode of acute pericarditis. In conclusion, early detection, prompt treatment, and understanding of pericardial diseases are necessary to help improve the quality of life of cancer patients, and we aim to summarize the knowledge of pericardial involvement in patients with cancer.

ObjectivesThis scoping review sought to summarise available data on the prevalence, aetiology, diagnosis, treatment and outcome of pericardial disease in Africa.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus and African Journals Online from 1 January 1967 to 30 July 2017 to identify all studies published on the prevalence, aetiologies, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of pericardial diseases in adults residing in Africa.Results36 studies were included. The prevalence of pericardial diseases varies widely according to the population of interest: about 1.1% among people with cardiac complaints, between 3.3% and 6.8% among two large cohorts of patients with heart failure and up to 46.5% in an HIV-infected population with cardiac symptoms. Tuberculosis is the most frequent cause of pericardial diseases in both HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected populations. Patients with tuberculous pericarditis present mostly with effusive pericarditis (79.5%), effusive constrictive pericarditis (15.1%) and myopericarditis (13%); a large proportion of them (up to 20%) present in cardiac tamponade. The aetiological diagnosis of pericardial diseases is challenging in African resource-limited settings, especially for tuberculous pericarditis for which the diagnosis is not definite in many cases. The outcome of these diseases remains poor, with mortality rates between 18% and 25% despite seemingly appropriate treatment approaches. Mortality is highest among patients with tuberculous pericarditis especially those coinfected with HIV.ConclusionPericardial diseases are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in Africa, especially in HIV-infected individuals. Tuberculosis is the most frequent cause of pericardial diseases, and it is associated with poor outcomes.

BackgroundThere are limited data on acute pericarditis according to different age groups. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of age-related features in clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of acute pericarditis, with a focus on the geriatric population.MethodsPatients with a first episode of acute pericarditis were consecutively enrolled between January 2014 and June 2022, and divided into four groups according to age (G1: 18–35 years; G2: 35–55 years; G3: 55–75 years; G4: >75 years). Clinical characteristics and medical therapy were recorded at baseline, and during follow-up.ResultsA total of 471 patients (median age 56.3 (IQR 33–73) years, 32.3% women) were included. Younger age (G1-G2-G3) was associated with a higher frequency of chest pain, pericardial rubs (p<0001), ECG changes (p=0.002) and were more commonly treated with colchicine (p<0.001), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (p=0.006). Older patients (G4) depicted more commonly dyspnoea, pericardial/pleural effusion (p=0.007) and were more often treated with corticosteroids (p=0.037). A secondary cause of pericarditis was detected in 128/471 (27.2%) patients. Older patients were more commonly hospitalised and had a complicated course with new-onset atrial fibrillation (p<0.001) and cardiac tamponade (p=0.005), compared with younger patients, who presented more recurrences (respectively G1: 43.0%, G2: 34.7%, G3: 28.2% and G4: 16.2%; p<0.001). After multivariable analysis, younger age remained the strongest independent predictor for recurrences (HR 3.23, 95% CI 1.81 to 5.58, p<0.001).ConclusionOlder age is associated with less recurrences of pericarditis, but more severe complications with need for hospitalisation.

Cardiac tamponade is a medical emergency caused by the progressive accumulation of pericardial fluid (effusion), blood, pus or air in the pericardium, compressing the heart chambers and leading to haemodynamic compromise, circulatory shock, cardiac arrest and death. Pericardial diseases of any aetiology as well as complications of interventional and surgical procedures or chest trauma can cause cardiac tamponade. Tamponade can be precipitated in patients with pericardial effusion by dehydration or exposure to certain medications, particularly vasodilators or intravenous diuretics. Key clinical findings in patients with cardiac tamponade are hypotension, increased jugular venous pressure and distant heart sounds (Beck triad). Dyspnoea can progress to orthopnoea (with no rales on lung auscultation) accompanied by weakness, fatigue, tachycardia and oliguria. In tamponade caused by acute pericarditis, the patient can experience fever and typical chest pain increasing on inspiration and radiating to the trapezius ridge. Generally, cardiac tamponade is a clinical diagnosis that can be confirmed using various imaging modalities, principally echocardiography. Cardiac tamponade is preferably resolved by echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis. In patients who have recently undergone cardiac surgery and in those with neoplastic infiltration, effusive–constrictive pericarditis, or loculated effusions, fluoroscopic guidance can increase the feasibility and safety of the procedure. Surgical management is indicated in patients with aortic dissection, chest trauma, bleeding or purulent infection that cannot be controlled percutaneously. After pericardiocentesis or pericardiotomy, NSAIDs and colchicine can be considered to prevent recurrence and effusive–constrictive pericarditis. Cardiac tamponade is a potentially life-threatening emergency involving compression of the heart caused by accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac. This Primer by Adler and colleagues provides an overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment and effect on patient quality of life of cardiac tamponade as well as of areas requiring further research.

Several passive surveillance systems reported increased risks of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, especially in young men. We used active surveillance from large health-care databases to quantify and enable the direct comparison of the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccinations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study, examining the primary outcome of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, identified using the International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, occurring 1–7 days post-vaccination, evaluated in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees aged 18–64 years using health plan claims databases in the USA. Observed (O) incidence rates were compared with expected (E) incidence rates estimated from historical cohorts by each database. We used multivariate Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rates, specific to each brand of vaccine, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2. We used meta-analyses to pool the adjusted incidence rates and IRRs across databases. A total of 411 myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, events were observed among 15 148 369 people aged 18–64 years who received 16 912 716 doses of BNT162b2 and 10 631 554 doses of mRNA-1273. Among men aged 18–25 years, the pooled incidence rate was highest after the second dose, at 1·71 (95% CI 1·31 to 2·23) per 100 000 person-days for BNT162b2 and 2·17 (1·55 to 3·04) per 100 000 person-days for mRNA-1273. The pooled IRR in the head-to-head comparison of the two mRNA vaccines was 1·43 (95% CI 0·88 to 2·34), with an excess risk of 27·80 per million doses (–21·88 to 77·48) in mRNA-1273 recipients compared with BNT162b2. An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis was observed after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and was highest in men aged 18–25 years after a second dose of the vaccine. However, the incidence was rare. These results do not indicate a statistically significant risk difference between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, but it should not be ruled out that a difference might exist. Our study results, along with the benefit–risk profile, continue to support vaccination using either of the two mRNA vaccines. US Food and Drug Administration.

Constrictive pericarditis is a result of chronic inflammation characterized by thickening and calcification of pericardial fibers, impaired diastolic filling, reduced cardiac output, and ultimately heart failure. The main objective of this multicenter trial is to evaluate whether conventional extracorporeal circulation pericardial resection has a better prognosis than pericardial resection without extracorporeal circulation. This study is a multicenter, randomized controlled, evaluator blinded, parallel group study with an advantageous framework. A total of 436 participants with constrictive pericarditis will be randomly assigned to either the extracorporeal circulation pericardial resection group or the non-extracorporeal circulation pericardial clearance group in a 1:1 ratio using a computer. Incomplete pericardial detachment is associated with low cardiac output syndrome after pericardial resection. The causes of low cardiac output syndrome are related to incomplete resection of thickened pericardium, unsatisfactory relief of left ventricular compression, excessive ventricular dilation after pericardial dissection, myocardial weakness, and heart failure. The relief of left ventricular compression is crucial for the postoperative recovery of cardiac function.

Pericardial disease secondary to sarcoidosis is a rare clinical entity with no observational studies in previous research. Therefore, we evaluated reported cases of pericarditis because of sarcoidosis to further understand its diagnosis and management. We performed a systematic review of previous research until December 16, 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Case reports and case series demonstrating pericardial involvement in sarcoidosis were included. Fourteen reports with a total of 27 patients were identified. Dyspnea (82%) was the most common presentation, with the lungs being the primary site of sarcoidosis in most patients (77%). The most frequently encountered pericardial manifestations were pericardial effusion (89%), constrictive pericarditis and cardiac tamponade (48%). Management of these patients included use of corticosteroids (82%), colchicine (11%), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (7%). Similar to the general population, the most common intervention in these patients was pericardiocentesis (59%), pericardial window (30%), and pericardiectomy (19%). Overall, the majority of this population (70%) achieved clinical improvement during median follow-up time of 8 months. In conclusion, the prevalence and incidence of sarcoid-induced pericarditial disease remain unclear. Clinical manifestations of pericardial involvement are variable, though many patients present with asymptomatic pericardial effusions. No consensus exists on the treatment of this special population, but corticosteroids and combination therapies are considered first-line therapies because of their efficacy in suppressing pericardial inflammation and underlying sarcoidosis. Patients with refractory cases of pericarditis may also benefit therapeutically from the addition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, colchicine, and/or biologics.