Choice of drainage procedure in paediatric pyopericardium: a 30-year experience

Abstract

Although there is general agreement on the necessity of draining pyopericardium, debate continues as to the safe and effective method of drainage. Studies describing head-to-head comparison of various drainage procedures are very few and are disadvantaged by small numbers of cases. In this observational study, we review our 30-years experience with different techniques of pericardial drainage. Between 1972 and 2003, the authors have personally treated 39 children who suffered from pyopericardium. Among the 22 children who underwent early partial pericardiectomy, 20 were alive. In contrast to this,12 out of 15 children treated with repeated pericardiocentesis or sub-xiphoid tube drainage were dead. The median hospital stay for pericardiectomy group was 18 days (range 11-32) and that for the non-thoracotomy group was 34 days (range 18-55 days). With regard to immediate survival and early convalescence in the pyopericardium, partial pericardiectomy is superior to pericardiocentesis and sub-xiphoid tube drainage. Pericardiocentesis can be used for diagnostic or temporizing purposes, but not as the definitive drainage procedure. Partial pericardiectomy can be done even in small hospitals where heart-lung machines are not available.