Effectiveness of posterior pericardiotomy in preventing cardiac tamponade and effusion pericarditis in the early period after interventions on the thoracic aorta

Background. Interventions on the thoracic aorta involving prolonged artificial circulation, clamping of the aorta and extensive dissection of the mediastinal structures are associated with a higher incidence of pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade compared to other interventions. We suggest that routine implementation of posterior pericardiotomy may significantly affect the incidence of postoperative pericardial effusion syndrome and cardiac tamponade after interventions on the thoracic aorta. Aim. Evaluation of the effectiveness of posterior pericardiotomy regarding the development of cardiac tamponade, effusion pericarditis and the postoperative course of patients in the early period after interventions on the thoracic aorta. Methods. We conducted a retro- and prospective study that included 100 patients with thoracic aorta pathologies who were operated on in the cardiac surgery department of clinic from 2017 to 2020. All subjects were divided into two groups: a treatment group of 40 patients who underwent routine posterior pericardiotomy, and a control group of 60 patients without posterior pericardiotomy but with standard installation of postoperative drains. Assessment of the effect of posterior pericardiotomy on pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade and the early postoperative period was conducted on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography that was performed daily during hospitalisation (the maximum amount of effusion during the observation period was taken as the control point), as well as up to one month after discharge from hospital. Results. The study groups did not differ regarding parameters such as time of artificial circulation (p = 0.39), time of myocardial ischaemia (p = 0.42), length of intensive care unit stay (p = 0.79) and length of hospitalisation (p = 0.21). Evaluation of pericardial effusion of varying severity during hospital follow-up revealed its presence in 15 (37.5%) patients in the PPt group and in 54 (90%) in the control group (p = 0.0001). Early postoperative cardiac tamponade developed in 4 (6.7%) patients in the control group, but was not observed in the PPt group (p = 0.09). At the same time, 5 (8.3%) patients without pericardiotomy required pericardiocentesis; however, this procedure was not performed in the PPt group (p = 0.06). Additionally, we did not find a statistically significant difference between the groups in relation to the frequency of puncture of the left pleural cavity (37.5% in the PPt group versus 43.3% in the control group, p = 0.56). According to the results of control echocardiography after one month, effusion of varying severity was found in 21 (35%) patients in the control group versus 1 (2.5%) in the PPt group (p = 0.0001). Conclusion. Posterior pericardiotomy is an affordable, applicable, safe and effective method for preventing postoperative pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade after thoracic aortic surgery. This manipulation did not significantly affect the length of hospitalisation or the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in this cohort of patients. Posterior pericardiotomy is not associated with a more frequent need for puncture of the left pleural cavity.