Open AccessPercutaneous Balloon Pericardiotomy as a Treatment for Recurrent Pericardial Effusion in 6 Dogs
Author(s) -
Sidley J.A.,
Atkins C.E.,
Keene B.W.,
DeFrancesco T.C.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of veterinary internal medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.356
H-Index - 103
eISSN - 1939-1676
pISSN - 0891-6640
DOI - 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2002.tb02384.x
Subject(s) - medicine , pericardial effusion , surgery , percutaneous , tamponade , balloon catheter , pericardium , pleural effusion , effusion , thoracic cavity , catheter , balloon , cardiac tamponade , radiology
Percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy (PBP) has been performed in people and in a small number of dogs as a treatment for recurrent pericardial effusion with tamponade (PET). We performed this technique on 6 dogs with recurrent PET (5 with heart base tumors and 1 with no identifiable mass). Under general anesthesia and fluoroscopic guidance, a balloon‐dilating catheter (diameters 14–20 mm) was introduced percutaneously at the 5th intercostal space through a sheath‐introducing catheter, positioned across the parietal pericardium, and inflated 3 times. No dog experienced serious complications. The procedure was considered successful in 4 of 6 dogs. One dog is still alive without recurrence of PET 1 year after the procedure. Three dogs died of unrelated disease without recurrence of PET 5, 19, and 32 months after the procedure. The procedure was not beneficial in 1 dog that was euthanized 9 weeks later because of recurrence of pleural and abdominal effusion thought to be secondary to PET One dog may have temporarily benefited but developed symptomatic PET 6 months after PBP. PBP appears to be a safe, economical, and potentially effective palliative treatment for recurrent PET and is a reasonable, less invasive alternative to surgery for dogs with recurrent PET, especially effusions caused by heart base tumors and possibly idiopathic pericardial effusion. Premature closure of the stoma is a potential cause for long‐term failure and was thought to have been responsible for the recurrence of clinical signs in 2 dogs.