MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308144663 · doi:10.1093/ehjcr/ytac437

Management of post-pericardiotomy constrictive pericarditis

2022· letter· en· W4308144663 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Aldajani, Michael Chetrit, Vartan Mardigyan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Case Reports · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstrictive pericarditisMedicineBusinessCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read the article by Mikhail et al. with great interest regarding their management of a case of post-pericardiotomy constrictive pericarditis (CP).1 They describe a case of a 68-year-old man who underwent recent cardiac surgery presenting 4 weeks post-operatively with biventricular failure with preserved ejection fraction and evidence of post-pericardiotomy CP on invasive haemodynamic and multimodality imaging. Given the lack of improvement with intravenous furosemide and colchicine, the decision was made for urgent surgical pericardiectomy, which was technically challenging, requiring a second pericardial decortication procedure. Subsequently, he developed acute right ventricular dysfunction requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, multiorgan failure, and eventual death. The authors emphasized the importance of incorporating multimodality imaging [including cardiac computed tomography (CT), echocardiogram, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)] to diagnose CP and guide management. CP post-cardiac surgery is a complication that is challenging to diagnose, occurring in 2–5% of patients with post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), requiring a high index of suspicion and associated with significantly worse outcomes.2 Although the mainstay treatment of CP is surgery in chronic cases, there may be a role for medical therapy in transient constriction, especially in the early postoperative phase.2,3 Anti-inflammatory drugs, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or corticosteroids, with colchicine may resolve the transient constriction until the resolution of the pericarditis, preventing the progression to chronic, non-reversible constriction. In patients with recurrent or incessant pericarditis with evidence of constriction and/or steroid contraindication, there is evidence for interleukin-1 antagonists, namely anakinra, for pericardial constriction reversal. It has been proposed as a last-line option for CP treatment before pericardiectomy, especially in the presence of inflammation.2,4 In PPS with early signs of constriction, we prefer starting with corticosteroids or anakinra to avoid delays that could lead to permanent constriction, especially in the first 3–6 weeks. Elevation in C-reactive protein (CRP) and imaging evidence of pericardial inflammation on cardiac CT and/or CMR may help identify patients with potentially reversible forms of constriction. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered to avoid invasive procedures like pericardiectomy.3 Given this patient’s subacute presentation post-pericardiotomy, constrictive physiology, increased signal intensity on T2, and late gadolinium enhancement on CMR (representing acute inflammation), this patient could have possibly benefited from corticosteroids or Anakinra.5 The CRP levels (which have not been reported) could have helped guide this treatment strategy. Of note, the diagnosis of CP is usually based on the clinical picture of right heart failure and evidence of constriction on imaging with ventricular interdependence and pericardial inflammation. Cardiac catheterization is rarely required and should only be considered when non-invasive methods do not provide a definite diagnosis of constriction.3 In conclusion, CP is a challenging diagnosis, requiring a high index of clinical suspicion. In addition to multimodality imaging, inflammatory markers like CRP help identify reversible constriction and guide therapy. An adequate trial of medical therapy should be considered, preferably with corticosteroids or anakinra, especially in early PPS when signs of early constriction are present and inflammation is reversible. Surgical options should be reserved for patients unresponsive to medical therapy. The authors report no funding resources relevant to the content.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0140.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Case ReportsSame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207