Autoimmune pericarditis

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

Autoimmune pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium attributable to a disease in which an immune response directed against components of the body contributes to tissue injury. It is observed mainly in the setting of connective tissue diseases and some vasculitides, with manifestations ranging from mild serositis to large effusion, tamponade, and, more rarely, constriction. It may occur in a previously known systemic disease or represent one of its first manifestations.

The term requires a causal attribution, not the mere coexistence of autoantibodies and chest pain. A patient with lupus may develop infectious pericarditis, a uremic effusion, or a drug-related complication; a person with idiopathic pericarditis may have low-titer antinuclear antibodies without connective tissue disease. The cardiologic and rheumatologic diagnoses must therefore be built together, while keeping separate the recognition of inflammation, its cause, and the severity of its consequences.

Autoimmune forms do not fully overlap with autoinflammatory pericarditis, in which abnormalities of innate immunity and syndromes with different features predominate. Biological overlap exists, but the distinction guides the search for systemic disease and the choice of therapy. Treatment must control the pericardium while simultaneously protecting other involved organs, avoiding corticosteroid dependence becoming the stable outcome of care.

Associated diseases and immune etiology

Systemic lupus erythematosus is one of the most relevant associations. Serositis may involve the pericardium and pleura and may be accompanied by skin, joint, hematologic, or renal manifestations. Subclinical pericardial involvement is more common than symptomatic pericarditis, and estimates vary according to the population and detection method. A small incidental effusion does not describe the same condition as painful serositis or tamponade and does not automatically require the same level of immunosuppression.

In rheumatoid arthritis, the pericardium may be involved as part of extra-articular manifestations. Known joint disease helps the assessment, but pericardial inflammation should not be attributed to the rheumatic disease without considering infections and comorbidities. Immunomodulatory treatment may reduce autoimmune activity and, at the same time, increase susceptibility to some infections. This dual relationship explains why fever and effusion during biologic therapy require etiologic investigation, not merely intensification of the drug already being used.

In systemic sclerosis, effusion and pericardial abnormalities may result from inflammation, fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, ventricular dysfunction, or renal involvement. The mechanism is not always active autoimmune serositis. This distinction is particularly important because glucocorticoids, especially at high doses, may promote scleroderma renal crisis in susceptible patients. Management should therefore be based on an overall interpretation of hemodynamics and disease, without automatically transferring a regimen effective in lupus to a patient with systemic sclerosis.

Sjögren syndrome, mixed connective tissue disease, and inflammatory myopathies may be associated with pericardial involvement, with variable frequency and evidence. Raynaud phenomenon, ocular and oral dryness, swollen fingers, muscle weakness, and interstitial lung disease guide suspicion. These findings, however, must be interpreted according to their specificity: isolated dryness and fatigue are common and do not prove connective tissue disease. Diagnosis requires a coherent combination of manifestations, tests, and, when indicated, organ-specific specialist assessments.

Systemic vasculitides may involve the heart through vascular inflammation, ischemic injury, myocarditis, and serositis. In eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, asthma, eosinophilia, and systemic signs make evaluation for cardiac disease particularly important. ANCA may be negative even in patients with significant cardiac involvement: a negative test does not exclude this diagnosis. The presence of myocardial injury or another organ-threatening manifestation changes severity and treatment indications compared with mild isolated pericarditis.

There are also forms associated with less common immune-mediated diseases, whose classification does not always coincide with classic autoimmunity. The diagnostic pathway should identify possible infiltrative, granulomatous, or drug-related phenotypes without artificially grouping them into a homogeneous category. Drug-induced pericarditis may also present with immunologic features and lupus-like syndromes. Precise attribution helps determine treatment and whether to remove an exposure, control a systemic disease, or search for a different process.

Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of serositis

Loss of immune tolerance may involve lymphocytes, autoantibodies, immune complexes, and inflammatory effector systems. The relative contribution of each mechanism varies among diseases. In lupus, deposition and immune activation contribute to serositis, but no single autoantibody alone proves the autoimmune origin of a pericardial episode. The presence of antibodies is part of systemic characterization and must be linked to the distribution of injury and clinical activity.

Activation of cytokines and complement promotes cellular recruitment and increased permeability, producing edema and exudation. Innate immunity also participates in autoimmune diseases, so an absolute distinction between adaptive and autoinflammatory processes would be biologically reductive. However, recognition of a common inflammatory pathway does not mean that a drug has identical efficacy across all diagnoses. Therapeutic evidence must be assessed in the population studied and not inferred solely from mechanistic plausibility.

Pericardial pain arises from inflammation of sensitive structures and is often modified by breathing and posture. It may be intense even with little fluid, whereas a large effusion may develop with modest symptoms. The amount of exudate depends on the balance between production and resorption, not only on pain intensity. For this reason, subjective improvement should be compared with hemodynamic assessment and should not be used as the sole indicator of disease resolution.

Fluid accumulation may cause tamponade if external pressure impedes filling. The rate of development, sac distensibility, and intracardiac pressures influence the clinical threshold. In severe pulmonary hypertension, classic signs of right-sided chamber collapse may be less evident, and drainage requires particular caution and expertise. Recognition of tamponade remains an integrated clinical and echocardiographic judgment: it does not depend solely on effusion size or a single Doppler finding.

A component of myocarditis may accompany serositis and explain elevated troponin, arrhythmias, or ventricular dysfunction. In lupus, inflammatory myopathies, and vasculitides, the distinction has therapeutic and prognostic importance. Dysfunction may also result from ischemia, pulmonary hypertension, or drug toxicity. Defining the mechanism prevents every cardiac abnormality from being attributed to the pericardial surface and helps determine whether more intensive systemic treatment or a different diagnostic pathway is needed.

Persistent inflammation may promote fibrous organization and abnormalities of filling. Constriction is less common than recurrence, but should be considered in the presence of persistent congestion. An inflammatory component may be reversible, whereas established fibrosis responds poorly to immunologic escalation alone. A thickened pericardium and constrictive pericarditis are not synonymous: the former is an anatomic finding, the latter a functional condition. Correct definition requires integration of anatomy, Doppler findings, and, in uncertain cases, further hemodynamic testing.

Clinical manifestations, history, and physical examination

Symptomatic pericarditis may present with retrosternal pain that worsens with inspiration or in the supine position and improves when sitting and leaning forward. Fever, fatigue, and dyspnea complete a nonspecific picture. A friction rub, when audible, is a useful finding, but its absence does not exclude inflammation. In patients already receiving treatment, manifestations and inflammatory markers may be blunted; an apparently mild episode should therefore be interpreted in light of medications and systemic disease.

The rheumatologic history should assess inflammatory arthritis, morning stiffness, photosensitivity, oral ulcers, alopecia, Raynaud phenomenon, rash, dryness, and muscle weakness. The character and association of symptoms matter, not merely the presence of complaints that are common in the general population. A history of thrombosis or obstetric complications suggests a possible role of antiphospholipid antibodies, but in that context chest pain also requires exclusion of pulmonary embolism or ischemia, which are not manifestations of serositis.

Signs of vasculitis include purpura, neuropathy, hematuria, airway symptoms, and, depending on the phenotype, asthma and eosinophilia. A patient with pericarditis and multiorgan manifestations should not be assessed as if each problem were independent. At the same time, systemic infections may mimic vasculitis and produce autoantibodies. Temporal reconstruction should clarify which manifestations preceded treatment, which are new, and which may represent an infectious or drug-related complication.

The treatment history includes corticosteroid doses and duration, immunosuppressants, biologics, recent tapering, and adherence. A recurrence during tapering may indicate inadequate control, but does not automatically prove immune dependence: objective inflammation and alternative diagnoses should be checked. Exposure to drugs capable of inducing lupus-like syndromes or cardiac injury should be considered. Failure to respond to appropriate therapy is a reason to reassess the diagnostic model, not merely to increase the dose.

The physical examination assesses friction rub, signs of pleural effusion, venous congestion, and perfusion, together with skin, joints, muscles, and the vascular system. Hypotension, persistent tachycardia, oliguria, or altered mental status require urgent evaluation for tamponade and other causes of shock. Edema may be due to cardiac, renal, or hypoalbuminemic causes; interpretation requires hemodynamic and urinary data. Blood pressure is also particularly important in systemic sclerosis, where a new increase may signal a renal complication.

Clinical risk stratification considers large effusion, instability, myocardial involvement, high fever, subacute course, and lack of response, in addition to immunosuppression. These features may require hospital evaluation and a more extensive etiologic workup. In stable, mild presentations the pathway may be less intensive, provided close follow-up and a plausible diagnosis are available. The presence of a known autoimmune disease should lead neither to automatic hospitalization for every minimal effusion nor to underestimation of a new potentially infectious presentation.

Initial investigations and attribution to autoimmunity

The diagnosis of pericardial inflammation is based on integration of the clinical picture, ECG, echocardiography, and biomarkers, with advanced imaging when the question remains unresolved. Diffuse ST-segment elevation and PR depression may support the diagnosis, but are not always present and do not define the cause. Echocardiography assesses the collection, cardiac function, and hemodynamic effects. Absence of effusion does not exclude pericarditis, whereas an isolated effusion does not prove that the process is inflammatory or autoimmune.

General laboratory tests include a complete blood count, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, creatinine, liver function tests, electrolytes, and urinalysis. Urine sediment and proteinuria quantification may reveal clinically subtle renal involvement that is relevant to diagnosis and drug selection. Troponin and, when useful, natriuretic peptides help define the cardiac component. Inflammatory markers alone do not distinguish flare from infection and may also be modified by treatment, renal injury, or other concomitant conditions.

Testing for ANA should be guided by clinical probability. A low titer may occur in people without autoimmune disease and in recurrent idiopathic pericarditis. Titer, pattern, and specific antibodies gain value within a coherent phenotype. For lupus, anti-double-stranded DNA, anti-Sm, and complement contribute to characterization; for other connective tissue diseases, antibodies relevant to the suspected diagnosis are selected. Ordering very broad panels without an indication increases the risk of incidental findings and inappropriate attribution.

Specific antibodies do not replace clinical assessment. Rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP are interpreted together with the joint picture; anti-U1RNP, anti-SSA, and other markers require the appropriate context. ANCA with specificity for myeloperoxidase or proteinase 3 are helpful in some vasculitides, but negativity does not exclude all phenotypes, particularly eosinophilic disease with cardiac involvement. Even a highly suggestive antibody does not automatically prove that an effusion is caused by the disease it identifies.

Cardiac magnetic resonance may document edema, pericardial enhancement, and myocardial injury, and is useful when symptoms and blood markers are discordant or when treatment escalation is being considered. A persistent finding should be interpreted in the context of the clinical course, because enhancement does not always equal clinically relevant inflammation requiring more medication. CT is useful for anatomy, calcifications, and associated thoracic disease. Neither modality alone identifies an autoimmune etiology, and neither should delay treatment of tamponade.

The differential diagnosis includes opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, neoplasia, uremia, and drug toxicity. Pericardiocentesis and fluid analysis are indicated according to severity and etiologic suspicion, not as mandatory tests for every serositis. Cultures, cytology, and selected investigations may radically change care. Inflammatory or protein-rich fluid does not prove autoimmunity, and biopsy rarely shows an exclusive finding. Classification criteria for connective tissue diseases support investigation and assessment, but should not be used as a stand-alone algorithm replacing clinical diagnosis.

Definition of systemic activity and subsequent investigations

Once a probable immune-mediated origin is established, it is necessary to determine whether the pericardium is the only active organ or part of a systemic flare. In lupus, trends in complement and anti-DNA antibodies, cytopenias, urinary findings, and clinical manifestations may contribute to assessment, without a single serologic change necessarily requiring treatment escalation. A patient with serositis and nephritis requires a different strategy from one with only pericardial pain. Treatment selection should consider the organ at greatest risk of irreversible injury.

Renal involvement deserves attention even when it is not the main manifestation. Proteinuria, hematuria, increased creatinine, or hypertension may change the diagnosis, severity assessment, and safety of NSAIDs. In systemic sclerosis, a picture compatible with scleroderma renal crisis should be sought, whereas in vasculitis an active urine sediment may indicate glomerulonephritis. When indicated, renal biopsy answers a specialist question and may be more informative for systemic management than a nonspecific pericardial biopsy.

Assessment of the lungs and pulmonary circulation helps interpret dyspnea and effusion, particularly in systemic sclerosis and connective tissue diseases with interstitial lung disease. Increased venous pressure may contribute to fluid accumulation without active serositis. Echocardiography, pulmonary function testing, and imaging are selected according to the clinical suspicion; right-heart catheterization is reserved for appropriate indications. Distinguishing pulmonary hypertension, interstitial disease, and pleuropericardial inflammation prevents all respiratory symptoms from being treated with corticosteroids.

Evaluation of the myocardium becomes a priority in the presence of elevated troponin, arrhythmias, conduction blocks, or reduced ventricular function. Magnetic resonance imaging contributes to characterization, whereas endomyocardial biopsy is considered in selected scenarios in which the result may change care. In vasculitides and eosinophilic diseases, significant cardiac involvement may change severity classification and require immunosuppressive induction. It is not appropriate to treat these patients solely as uncomplicated pericarditis.

Before intensifying therapy, infectious risk is assessed in relation to the planned drug: ongoing infections, vaccination status, and screening for latent or reactivatable infections according to indications and context. The plan should include hematologic, hepatic, and renal monitoring, as well as prophylaxis appropriate to the intensity of immunosuppression when needed. Not all patients require the same tests, but an explicit choice is preferable to starting multiple immunomodulators without considering their cumulative effects on host defenses.

Definition of the recurrent phenotype requires documentation of episodes, remission intervals, treatments, and objective evidence of inflammation. Persistent chest pain may also arise from the pleura, muscles, esophagus, or pain sensitization. Before classifying pericarditis as refractory, doses, adherence, duration, and correctness of attribution should be verified. This step avoids increasing immunosuppression for symptoms without demonstrable pericardial activity and helps identify who may benefit from targeted treatment.

Treatment of pericarditis and management of tamponade

In mild or moderate forms with symptomatic inflammation, NSAIDs and colchicine are initial options, adapted to the underlying disease and comorbidities. The strongest data on prevention of recurrence with colchicine come from pericarditis populations that were not exclusively autoimmune, so application requires clinical judgment. ACR recommendations for lupus support initial use of NSAIDs, colchicine, or their combination in pleuropericarditis, with early reassessment and possible addition of glucocorticoids when control is insufficient.

The safety of NSAIDs depends on renal function, blood pressure, gastrointestinal risk, and concomitant therapies. Nephritis, renal failure, heart failure, or anticoagulation may limit their use. Gastroprotection and monitoring should be proportionate to risk. Colchicine requires attention to renal and hepatic function, tolerability, and interactions, especially with metabolic inhibitors or drugs that increase the risk of myotoxicity. It is not appropriate to consider it risk-free simply because it is not usually classified among conventional immunosuppressants.

The glucocorticoids may be necessary when serositis is significant, does not respond, or accompanies a systemic flare. The dose should reflect severity and the organs involved: a moderate regimen used for isolated pericarditis may be insufficient for organ-threatening vasculitis, whereas high doses may be disproportionate for a small serositis. Once control is achieved, tapering is planned according to clinical and objective response. Repeated dose increases without a steroid-sparing strategy expose patients to toxicity and therapeutic dependence.

The tamponade requires decompression when clinically indicated, even if the cause is autoimmune and potentially steroid-responsive. The expected speed of the immunologic response is not sufficient reason to defer treatment of obstruction. The fluid also provides a diagnostic opportunity to exclude infection and neoplasia. Technique and setting should be appropriate to anatomy and comorbidities; in severe pulmonary hypertension management is particularly delicate and should involve experienced operators.

The relative rest and limitation of physical activity during the active phase accompany therapy, with gradual return after clinical control and reassessment. If myocarditis is present, the return-to-activity pathway and rhythm surveillance should also follow myocardial risk. Analgesia and pain improvement do not necessarily equal remission. Decisions to taper medication should integrate symptoms, interpretable biomarkers, and imaging when necessary, avoiding both overly rapid tapering and prolonged treatment without a verifiable goal.

A asymptomatic effusion that is small and stable and has no evidence of active inflammation or hemodynamic compromise does not automatically require treatment as painful pericarditis. Its mechanism should be clarified and the systemic disease followed. If the fluid increases or symptoms appear, the plan should be reassessed. This distinction is particularly useful in patients with renal disease, pulmonary hypertension, or systemic sclerosis, in whom effusion may be a marker of overall severity without representing an isolated target for greater immunosuppression.

Treatment of the underlying disease and refractory forms

In lupus, hydroxychloroquine is an important background therapy when not contraindicated, with dosing adjusted to body weight and individual risk and with appropriate ophthalmologic monitoring. It does not replace decompression or treatment of a severe manifestation, but contributes to disease control. The systemic goal is remission or low disease activity while limiting chronic exposure to glucocorticoids. Persistent serositis therefore requires a strategy that takes other manifestations and cumulative damage into account, not only current pain.

Azathioprine and mycophenolate may be considered for persistent or recurrent disease and to reduce the need for corticosteroids, according to phenotype and organ involvement. Evidence directly related to pericarditis is less robust than that for some other systemic manifestations. Selection includes onset of action, pregnancy or reproductive planning, toxicity, and patient preferences. A drug useful for nephritis may contribute to control of serositis, but this does not prove that it is superior in every isolated pericardial form.

The 2025 ACR recommendations for persistent or recurrent lupus pleuropericarditis conditionally support conventional immunosuppressants or biologics when initial therapy is insufficient. For a predominantly pleuropericardial manifestation, the expert group lists interleukin-1 blockade among preferred biologic options, while noting that evidence in lupus is mainly indirect. This guidance does not amount to comparative proof of superiority across all connective tissue diseases and should be integrated with activity in other organs, access, and infectious risk.

The interleukin-1 blockade with anakinra or rilonacept has important evidence in selected recurrent pericarditis, but trial results cannot be transferred without reservation to the entire autoimmune group. A phenotype with documented inflammatory recurrences, steroid dependence, and inadequate response to colchicine may justify specialist discussion. Clinical indication should be distinguished from local authorization, and infections, baseline tests, and concomitant therapies should be assessed. Combination with other biologics is not automatic and may increase risk without proven benefit.

In vasculitis with organ-threatening cardiac involvement, treatment follows systemic severity and may require glucocorticoids together with cyclophosphamide or rituximab according to diagnosis and context. In eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, strategies used for nonsevere disease should not be considered equivalent to induction therapy for severe cardiac involvement. In systemic sclerosis, by contrast, steroid use should be particularly cautious and accompanied by blood pressure and renal monitoring. The same pericardial finding may therefore lead to very different decisions.

Before declaring treatment refractoriness, infection, diagnosis, adherence, dose, and the actual presence of inflammation should be reassessed. Belimumab, anifrolumab, and other therapies may be appropriate for specific systemic phenotypes, but should not be presented as drugs with universally proven pericardial efficacy. Pericardiectomy has a role in persistent symptomatic constriction and selected situations, not as an ordinary substitute for immunologic control. Surgical decisions should consider disease activity, infectious risk, myocardial injury, and the possibility of functional recovery.

Prognosis, complications, and follow-up

The pericardial prognosis is often favorable when inflammation is controlled, but overall risk depends on the systemic disease and other sites of involvement. Uncomplicated serositis does not have the same significance as myocarditis, nephritis, or cardiac vasculitis. Recurrences may be clinically important even without permanent structural injury because of pain, functional limitation, and drug exposure. Outcome assessment should therefore include episode frequency, quality of life, and the ability to taper corticosteroids safely.

The early follow-up assesses response, tolerability, and effusion course, with intervals proportionate to severity. After a major episode, repeat echocardiography documents hemodynamic resolution; in uncertain or recurrent cases, advanced imaging may clarify residual activity. C-reactive protein is useful when elevated at onset, but is not a perfect marker in every disease or under every treatment. Clinical decisions should preserve coherence among symptoms, findings, and the immunologic context.

The recurrent tamponade requires re-examination of the cause and systemic control, especially if behavior differs from previous episodes. Opportunistic infection, neoplasia, and bleeding may arise during the course of autoimmune disease and should not be excluded out of diagnostic habit. Constriction is a less common but important complication: persistent congestion and filling abnormalities require distinction from myocardial dysfunction and pulmonary hypertension. Persistence of a thickened pericardium alone does not justify intervention.

The treatment complications include infections, osteoporosis, diabetes, hypertension, and corticosteroid-related metabolic injury, as well as toxicities specific to immunosuppressants. Prevention and monitoring should be calibrated to dose, duration, and combinations. In systemic sclerosis, blood pressure and renal monitoring are particularly important; in lupus treated with hydroxychloroquine, surveillance for retinal toxicity is part of background management. These checks are not separate from pericardial care because they determine its long-term sustainability.

The clinical remission does not necessarily require disappearance of every serologic abnormality. Conversely, normalization of autoantibodies or complement alone does not guarantee cardiac resolution. An isolated increase in a marker should be interpreted before therapy is modified, whereas new symptoms require evaluation even with reassuring blood tests. It is useful to define shared goals for controlling inflammation, reducing recurrences, and preventing damage, avoiding treatment that pursues only a laboratory value.

Over the long term, multidisciplinary continuity and clarity of the treatment plan reduce the risk of contradictory changes. The cardiologist and rheumatologist should share documented activity, tapering goals, and criteria for reassessment. The patient should be able to recognize worsening dyspnea, syncope, new fever, or signs of toxicity requiring earlier review. Return to physical and work activity should be individualized, especially after myocardial injury, aiming for a functional life with the lowest treatment burden compatible with disease control.

References
1. Schulz-Menger J et al. 2025 ESC Guidelines for the management of myocarditis and pericarditis. European Heart Journal. 2025;46(40):3952-4041.
2. Klein AL et al. Pericardial Diseases: International Position Statement on New Concepts and Advances in Multimodality Cardiac Imaging. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2024;17(8):937-988.
3. Adler Y et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2015;36(42):2921-2964.
4. Kawano Y et al. Management of Pericarditis in Rheumatic Diseases. American College of Cardiology: Expert Analysis. 2022. Institutional online resource. Accessed September 26, 2026. https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2022/12/05/12/24/Management-of-Pericarditis-in-Rheumatic-Diseases.
5. Fanouriakis A et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus: 2023 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2024;83(1):15-29.
6. Sammaritano LR et al. 2025 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Guideline for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Care & Research. 2026;78(7):815-839.
7. Del Galdo F et al. EULAR recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis: 2023 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2025;84(1):29-40.
8. Chung SA et al. 2021 American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 2021;73(8):1366-1383.
9. Imazio M et al. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369(16):1522-1528.
10. Brucato A et al. Effect of Anakinra on Recurrent Pericarditis Among Patients With Colchicine Resistance and Corticosteroid Dependence: The AIRTRIP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316(18):1906-1912.
11. Klein AL et al. Phase 3 Trial of Interleukin-1 Trap Rilonacept in Recurrent Pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;384(1):31-41.
12. U.S. National Library of Medicine. COLCHICINE tablet, film coated: prescribing information. DailyMed. n.d. Accessed September 26, 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=50b9c910-49a3-4a57-80f5-dc36c09da4df.
13. Imazio M et al. Prevalence of C-reactive protein elevation and time course of normalization in acute pericarditis: implications for the diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis of pericarditis. Circulation. 2011;123(10):1092-1097.
14. Imazio M et al. Risk of constrictive pericarditis after acute pericarditis. Circulation. 2011;124(11):1270-1275.
15. Welch TD et al. Echocardiographic diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis: Mayo Clinic criteria. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2014;7(3):526-534.
16. Sagristà-Sauleda J et al. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(5):469-475.
17. Imazio M et al. Indicators of poor prognosis of acute pericarditis. Circulation. 2007;115(21):2739-2744.
18. Mauro AG et al. The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome in Pericarditis: Potential for Therapeutic Approaches. JACC: Basic to Translational Science. 2021;6(2):137-150.