Chronic pericardial constriction with effusion in childhood.

Haycock, G B; Jordan, S.C.

doi:10.1136/adc.54.11.890

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of low incidence and varied presentation, the diagnosis of CCP can often be missed 4 . Usually, the presentation is due to global constriction of the pericardium, but very rarely CCP can also present as a mass lesion 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrapericardial mass lesion in infancy: It could be chronic constrictive pericarditis

Juneja

et al. 2002

Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrapericardial mass lesion in infancy: It could be chronic constrictive pericarditis

Juneja

et al. 2002

Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the other hand, restrictive cardiomyopathy has been described in the presence of amyloidosis, sarcoidosis, and hemachromatosis [3][4][5]14,15]. Unfortunately, the majority of patients with either constrictive pericarditis or restrictive cardiomyopathy have no suggestive history [5,9,11,16,17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a consequence of the high impedance to ventricular filling that both groups share [3][4][5]111. However, such signs are not always evident in the patient with constrictive pericarditis or a cardiomyopathy [ 17,IS]. The presence of a murmur does not allow the separation of the two groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic problem: Constrictive pericarditis or restrictive cardiomyopathy?

Anderson

1983

Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the patient presents with the signs and symptoms of high venous pressure, a quiet heart and no apparent structural defects, two diagnoses that come to mind are constrictive pericarditis and myocardial disease. The patients that fall into these two groups usually can be separated by a series of diagnostic steps, beginning with the history and extending through noninvasive and invasive evaluations. However, listed among the various classifications of myocardial disease is the one termed restrictive cardiomyopathy [ 11. Whatever the underlying disease process, whether involving the endomyocardium or myocardium, the major pathophysiologic effect is to shift leftward and upward the ventricular passive pressure-volume relationship. Consequently, the ventricular diastolic properties of these patients mimic those of the patient with constrictive pericarditis and so produce the same signs and symptoms [2-51.This commentary was written to accompany an article that categorizes a child as having a restrictive cardiomyopathy based on the signs and symptoms of a high venous pressure, nearly normal pump function, normal ventricular size, a 6-mm Hg end-diastolic pressure gradient between the right and left ventricle and enlarged atria. No pathologic material was obtained. These findings may not be enough to categorize a patient as having a restrictive cardiomyopathy instead of constrictive pericarditis. For example, we have seen a 3-year-old with elevated venous pressure, a 13-mm Hg end-diastolic pressure gradient (33 versus 20 mm Hg) between the left and right ventricle, tricuspid insufficiency, enlarged atria, and a pathologic diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis. The purpose of the following comments is to point out, as has been done previously, the difficulties in separating patients with constrictive pericarditis from those with restrictive cardiomyopathy.

show abstract