# Radical pericardiectomy for the treatment of constrictive pericarditis: Single-center experience in Vietnam

## TL;DR

This study shows that radical pericardiectomy with cardiopulmonary bypass is effective in treating constrictive pericarditis, with improved heart function and low recurrence.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the effectiveness of radical pericardiectomy combined with cardiopulmonary bypass and an apical suction device in a single-center Vietnamese setting.

## Key findings

- CPB usage did not increase postoperative complications despite longer recovery times.
- Significant improvements in cardiac function and symptom relief were observed at 3-month follow-up.
- No cases of CP recurrence were observed during the follow-up period.

## Abstract

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.