Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
Cox-Maze IV Procedure Concomitant with Valvular Surgery In Situs Inversus Dextrocardia: A Single-Center Experience in China
Published on: February 11, 2022
Radical pericardiectomy for the treatment of constrictive pericarditis: Single-center experience in Vietnam
Phan Quang Thuan1, Tran Quoc Han2, Ho Duc Thang1
1Department of Adult Cardiovascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.
Insights
Radical pericardiectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and an apical suction device effectively treats constrictive pericarditis (CP), showing improved cardiac function and no recurrence in a small study.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Thoracic Surgery
- Cardiac Surgery
Background:
- Constrictive pericarditis (CP) is a chronic inflammatory condition requiring surgical intervention.
- Radical pericardiectomy is the standard treatment for CP.
- The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) during surgery varies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of radical pericardiectomy combined with CPB and an apical suction device in treating CP.
- To assess the impact of CPB on surgical outcomes for CP patients.
Main Methods:
- A single-center retrospective analysis of 10 patients undergoing radical pericardiectomy for CP.
- Data collected included clinical details, surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes.
- Follow-up included 3-month echocardiographic and clinical evaluations.
Main Results:
- 60% of patients underwent CPB during surgery.
- CPB use did not increase postoperative complications, despite longer recovery and hospital stays.
- Significant improvements in cardiac function and symptom relief were observed at 3-month follow-up.
Conclusions:
- Radical pericardiectomy with CPB and an apical suction device is effective for CP treatment.
- The procedure demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes and low recurrence rates.
- Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Background:
Constrictive pericarditis (CP) is a chronic inflammatory condition often necessitating surgical intervention. Radical pericardiectomy is the standard treatment, but the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) varies based on intraoperative hemodynamics. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of radical pericardiectomy combined with CPB and the apical suction device in treating CP.
Methods:
We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 10 patients undergoing radical pericardiectomy for CP. Clinical data, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Follow-up assessments included echocardiographic and clinical evaluations at 3 months, with a mean survival follow-up duration of 30.9 ± 21.3 months.
Results:
Among the included patients, 60% underwent CPB during surgery. Despite longer recovery times and hospital stays, CPB usage did not increase postoperative complications. Echocardiographic and clinical assessments at 3-month follow-up revealed significant improvements in cardiac function and symptom relief. No cases of CP recurrence were observed during the follow-up period.
Conclusion:
Radical pericardiectomy combined with CPB and the apical suction device demonstrates effectiveness in treating CP, with favorable short-term outcomes and low recurrence rates. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up durations are warranted to validate these findings.
