No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Pericardial disease is a common complication of solid tumors and occasionally seen in hematologic malignancies. Pericardial effusion, when it occurs, is usually caused by tumor seeding of the pericardium leading to a serous effusion or by mass effect from mediastinal lymphadenopathy blocking drainage of lymphatic ducts. Pericardial disease from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is uncommon and malignant pericardial effusion is even rarer. Here we present a case of a 31-year-old male with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who developed cardiac tamponade from a malignant pericardial effusion.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cardiovascular disease. In the past, acute myocardial infarction was the leading cause of CS. However, in recent years, other etiologies, such as decompensated chronic heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease, and post-cardiotomy, each with distinct hemodynamic profiles, have risen in prevalence. The number of treatment options, particularly with regard to device-mediated therapy has also increased. In this review, we sought to survey the medical literature and provide an update on current practices.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is an uncommon form of cardiomyopathy that affects young women at the end of pregnancy or in the first few months following delivery, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In selected patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve outcomes. However, data comparing outcomes of patients with PPCM who develop CS and receive mechanical circulatory support (MCS) vs. those treated medically remains limited. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Database (NIS) we identified patients with PPCM who were treated for CS from 2012 to 2017. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariate analysis models were adjusted for statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Results: A total of 4686 patients were admitted with a diagnosis of PPCM, of these 199 patients developed cardiogenic shock. Only 50 (25.1%) patients received MCS. Patients who received MCS were less likely to have a prior ICD in place (6% vs. 23%, p = 0.008), and were more likely to suffer from end-stage renal disease (6% vs. 0.67%, p = 0.020). There were no other major differences in baseline characteristics among the two groups. The incidence of ICD implant prior to discharge (4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.243, OR 0.39) and cardiac arrest (16% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.173, OR 2.01) was not significantly different between the groups. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between those who received MCS devices and those treated medically (22% vs 10.1%, p = 0.256, OR 1.73). LOS was longer for the MCS group (23.2% vs. 13.4 mean days, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The use of MCS in PPCM patients who developed cardiogenic shock appears to offer similar survival benefit compared to those treated medically, despite being associated with longer length of stay This finding may be related to the complexity and acuity level of patients receiving MCS compared to those treated medically.