Pathological forms of pericarditis

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

The pathological forms of pericarditis describe the type of lesion present on the pericardial layers and the material that accumulates in the pericardial space: serous exudate, fibrin, pus, blood, granulomas, necrosis, and fibrous tissue may occur alone or in different combinations. The traditional classification distinguishes serous, fibrinous, purulent, hemorrhagic, and caseous forms; modern interpretation also considers fibrous organization, the granulomatous component, and some less common findings such as cholesterol deposits. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive and do not represent mandatory stages of a single sequence.

The morphology answers the question of how the pericardium is injured, whereas etiology identifies the responsible process and physiology describes its consequences for cardiac filling. A fibrinous surface does not prove a viral cause, bloody fluid does not equal neoplasia, and fibrosis alone does not prove hemodynamic constriction. Even the term purulent, although indicating a particularly important infectious suspicion, must be linked to microbiologic examination and context. Correct diagnosis results from integration of the history, imaging, fluid analysis, and, when truly indicated, histology.

There are no reliable population epidemiologic estimates for each histologic pattern. Most uncomplicated cases of pericarditis do not undergo biopsy; pathology series instead select patients who underwent surgery, drainage, or autopsy. The frequency of findings in such series cannot be extrapolated to all pericarditis. Fibrin is a common finding in the inflammatory response, whereas pus, caseous necrosis, and tumor infiltrates are less frequent in general case series from high-income countries but carry diagnostic and therapeutic importance disproportionate to their frequency.

Etiology, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology of pericardial lesions

The serous pericardium has a mesothelial surface that limits friction and supporting connective tissue with a microcirculation and lymphatic vessels. Mesothelial injury disrupts this organization and alters the balance between fluid production and reabsorption. Infections, ischemic injury, trauma, procedures, uremia, immune-mediated diseases, drugs, and neoplastic infiltrates can activate a partly shared response, although cellular distribution and injury intensity differ. The distinction between causes and predisposing conditions remains essential: immunosuppression facilitates some infections but does not determine a single histologic form, and neoplasia may be associated with pericardial lesions even without direct infiltration.

During the exudative phase, inflammatory mediators increase vascular permeability and promote leukocyte migration. Fluid entering the cavity contains variable amounts of proteins and cells, while the mesothelium may appear reactive, damaged, or desquamated. The relative proportions of water, protein, and cellular components contribute to the gross appearance. Clear fluid, however, does not necessarily demonstrate inflammation: hydrostatic abnormalities or impaired drainage can produce fluid without true pericarditis. Morphological diagnosis must therefore distinguish inflammatory exudation from predominantly noninflammatory accumulation.

Passage of fibrinogen and local activation of coagulation lead to deposition of fibrin. The fibrin network traps cells and debris and may form strands or bridges between the layers. Its persistence depends on the balance with removal and fibrinolysis; not all fibrin progresses to scar. If the injury regresses and the material is reabsorbed, the pericardium may recover a functional surface. If the stimulus persists, stromal cells and small vessels penetrate the material, organizing it into granulation tissue that may mature into adhesions and fibrosis.

The innate response may involve the interleukin-1 axis and the NLRP3 inflammasome. Damage signals and microbial components stimulate intracellular pathways that promote cytokine production and maturation; activated caspase-1 participates in maturation of interleukin-1β. Data from human samples and experimental models support this mechanism in pericardial inflammation, without making it a routine diagnostic histologic criterion. A pathologist does not identify autoinflammatory pericarditis simply by observing fibrin or neutrophils. Likewise, the clinical benefit of anti-interleukin-1 therapy does not permit retrospective inference of a specific morphology.

In pyogenic infections, recruitment of neutrophils, their breakdown, and tissue injury produce pus, sometimes mixed with large amounts of fibrin. Enzymes and mediators may extend the injury beyond the serosal surface; at the same time, septa and adhesions divide the cavity into compartments and hinder drainage. In mycobacterial infections or other granulomatous responses, aggregates of modified macrophages, epithelioid cells, and, to a variable extent, giant cells and necrosis instead predominate. The host immune response influences the architecture: morphology may be less organized in severely immunosuppressed patients.

The hemorrhagic component may result from microvascular injury, fragile neovessels, neoplastic infiltration, trauma, or procedural injury. Blood may therefore mix with the exudate of pericarditis or form a predominantly hemorrhagic collection without initial inflammation. Subsequent organization of a clot may produce adhesions and fibrosis, but this evolution does not transform the original cause into idiopathic pericarditis. Calcification may also occur in chronically injured tissues as a dystrophic phenomenon; by itself it does not identify tuberculosis, inflammatory activity, or a specific abnormality of mineral metabolism.

Functional consequences depend on the distribution of the lesion. A rough surface promotes friction rub and pain, whereas fluid generates pressure whose importance depends on the rate of accumulation and distensibility. A localized collection can selectively compress one chamber; a circumferential collection can globally impair filling. A dense scar can limit diastolic expansion and alter transmission of respiratory pressures. The amount of exudate and tissue thickness therefore do not replace assessment of physiology: an apparently minimally thickened pericardium can be constrictive, and a highly fibrinous surface may not cause tamponade.

Gross and microscopic patterns

The serous form is dominated by relatively clear or straw-colored fluid, with a variable cellular and fibrinous component. Tissue may show mesothelial changes and a mild infiltrate. The appearance is compatible with different inflammatory causes and is not a marker of benignity. The main interpretive limitation is gross overlap with noninflammatory collections. To call a condition serous pericarditis, the overall picture must document inflammation, whereas an effusion from congestion or hypothyroidism should not automatically receive the same label simply because it is transparent.

In the fibrinous form, the layers lose their normal sheen and develop a dull, irregular, villous, or filamentous surface. The appearance traditionally compared with two buttered bread surfaces separated after being placed together describes the distribution of fibrin, not a specific disease. Microscopically, superficial eosinophilic fibrin deposits are seen together with leukocytes and a variable reaction in the underlying tissue. Myocardial infarction, uremia, infections, systemic diseases, surgery, and neoplasms can produce this pattern. The term dry pericarditis indicates little or no fluid collection, without implying that the tissue is not intensely inflamed.

The serofibrinous form combines an effusion with fibrin deposits. It is a particularly useful description when imaging or direct examination identifies strands and septa within a collection. The presence of these structures suggests complex contents but does not allow them to be attributed with certainty to tuberculosis or pyogenic infection. Septa may reduce communication among regions of the cavity and make drainage performed at a single site incomplete. The outcome ranges from reabsorption to organization; there is no mandatory progression from serous to fibrinous and then constrictive that applies to all patients.

The purulent form, also called suppurative, contains an exudate rich in degenerated neutrophils, debris, and proteinaceous material, sometimes dense, yellowish, or greenish. Purulent and suppurative do not indicate two distinct diseases. The material may be poorly fluid, adherent to the layers, and compartmentalized by fibrin. Histology may show necrosis and a neutrophilic infiltrate extending into pericardial tissue. Demonstration of microorganisms or a positive culture provides causal confirmation, but prior antibiotics and sampling can reduce sensitivity. A negative microbiologic result does not negate a strong clinical and morphological suspicion.

Pus requires bacterial infection to be considered a priority and a focus or portal of entry to be sought. Distribution may be diffuse or localized, and a partially drained cavity may retain infected compartments. The consistency of the material alone does not allow antibiotic selection, whereas a neutrophil predominance in fluid is not, by itself, equivalent to demonstration of pus or a specific bacterium. Opportunistic infections must also be considered in an immunosuppressed patient. Morphology therefore has an immediate role in guiding urgency and sampling, but definitive therapy requires microbiologic integration.

The hemorrhagic form contains blood mixed with exudate and inflammatory components. It may accompany neoplasms, tuberculosis, postsurgical lesions, trauma, and other conditions; the appearance is not specific for malignancy. Microscopically, erythrocytes, fibrin, macrophages containing blood pigment, and findings of the underlying cause may be seen if included in the sample. The distinction from hemopericardium is conceptual: the latter describes blood in the cavity, even without primary inflammation, as after perforation or cardiovascular rupture.

Blood obtained during puncture may also come from the collection or from traumatic contamination. The appearance of the tubes, possible clot formation, and fluid hematocrit may contribute to interpretation, but they are not an infallible method for excluding procedural injury. They must be integrated with clinical dynamics and echocardiographic guidance. Bloody fluid in an anticoagulated patient requires identification of the source and the role of therapy, without automatically attributing the entire picture to the drug. Urgency is determined by hemodynamic compromise and suspicion of an injury requiring repair.

The caseous form describes friable necrotic material, typically associated with granulomatous inflammation. Tuberculosis is the main clinical reference, but this type of necrosis is not, by itself, an exclusive signature of mycobacteria: some fungal infections can produce overlapping patterns. Epithelioid granulomas, giant cells, and necrosis must therefore be correlated with stains, cultures, molecular tests, and extracardiac findings. Conversely, tuberculous pericarditis may be exudative or fibrotic and may not show caseous necrosis in the sampled material. The report should not confuse absence of a finding with exclusion of the etiology.

The term granulomatous is broader than caseous. It may describe infectious reactions, systemic diseases, or responses to foreign material; non-necrotizing granulomas require a differential diagnosis that considers the overall context. After surgery, foreign-body giant-cell reactions to sutures or other material may be present. Morphology may suggest the mechanism but does not always prove it, and a diagnosis of sarcoidosis or another systemic disease does not automatically follow from a single pericardial granuloma. It is important to assess distribution and, when available, lesions in other organs.

In organized and fibrous pericarditis, granulation tissue progressively replaces fibrin and debris, with fibroblast proliferation, collagen deposition, and adhesions between the layers. Areas of active inflammation may persist next to mature scarred areas; the sample therefore represents a heterogeneous process and not always a single temporal phase. Fibrosis may be focal or diffuse, obliterate the pericardial space, and be associated with calcification. The term adhesive describes union of the surfaces, whereas constrictive requires a demonstrated functional consequence. Limited adhesions, especially postoperative ones, may exist without a constrictive syndrome.

Cholesterol pericarditis is a rare pattern in which crystals and lipid products accumulate in a generally chronic effusion, with a possible macrophage and giant-cell reaction. The fluid may have a shimmering appearance, but confirmation requires appropriate examination. It should not be confused with chylopericardium, in which the problem is the presence of chyle and assessment of chylomicrons has a specific role. An eosinophilic component, when relevant, may accompany drug reactions, parasitic infections, or other conditions, but does not automatically assign a single cause. Less common findings should also be described before being translated into an etiologic hypothesis.

Neoplastic infiltration may coexist with any exudative appearance. Demonstration of tumor cells in fluid or tissue is distinct from the presence of surrounding reactive inflammation. Reactive mesothelial proliferations can be highly atypical and require comparison with architecture, adequate preparations, and immunophenotypic studies. A report of nonspecific fibrinous pericarditis neither proves nor excludes an unsampled neoplasm. The final terminology should therefore separate certain findings, such as fibrin and fibrosis, from the identified cause and from hypotheses that still require clinical correlation.

Clinical manifestations and clinicopathologic correlation

The history should begin with symptoms and their evolution, without immediately trying to assign a histologic form. Respiratory and positional pain suggests inflammation of the surfaces but does not distinguish a serous lesion from a fibrinous one or from an infectious form. Onset, intensity, duration, relationship with inspiration and posture, and the occurrence of dyspnea, fever, or fatigue are reconstructed. Symptoms may be intense with a small effusion or mild with a large collection. A morphological diagnosis inferred from pain alone would therefore have unjustified precision.

High fever with chills, rapid deterioration, and an infectious focus should raise suspicion of a suppurative form. However, in frail or immunosuppressed patients the presentation may be poorly characteristic and dominated by sepsis. Recent antibiotic use may attenuate fever and reduce culture yield without resolving a loculated collection. Pneumonia, empyema, bloodstream infections, thoracic procedures, and trauma are investigated. The history guides the probability of the cause and need for drainage, but recognition of pus requires observation of the material or a convincing diagnostic context.

In a subacute course with weight loss, night sweats, tuberculosis exposure, or lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis and neoplasms are considered together with other compatible causes. The presence of a known malignancy increases the likelihood of neoplastic involvement but does not exclude infection or treatment toxicity. A collection after radiotherapy may also develop later and be associated with injury to other cardiac structures. Hemorrhagic forms may present with pain and dyspnea or with sudden deterioration: anticoagulants, trauma, and procedures must be investigated in addition to infiltrative causes.

A history of edema, ascites, early satiety, and reduced exercise capacity suggests a chronic filling abnormality. Slow progression may make abdominal symptoms predominate over chest symptoms and delay suspicion of constriction. Cardiac surgery, previous pericardial episodes, tuberculosis, and thoracic irradiation should be reconstructed, without attributing every case of ascites to primary liver disease. Fibrous morphology may explain the mechanism, but clinical diagnosis requires demonstration of actual limitation. Even an incidentally discovered calcified pericardium may not be responsible for symptoms.

Physical examination first assesses stability, temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and perfusion. Tachycardia, hypotension, oliguria, and altered consciousness may indicate tamponade or sepsis, including both simultaneously. Measurement of pulsus paradoxus and inspection of the jugular veins help characterize filling, but no single sign identifies the type of exudate. A hypovolemic patient may have pericardial compromise with less evident venous signs. Attention to hemodynamics always takes precedence over attempts to classify the contents of the cavity.

The friction rub reflects movement of altered surfaces and may be particularly consistent with a fibrinous lesion, but it is not an acoustic biopsy. Its intensity does not measure the amount of fibrin, and its absence does not exclude fibrin. An effusion may separate the surfaces and alter the finding, which may nevertheless persist or vary over time. In fibrous forms with constriction, a pericardial knock, jugular venous distension, and Kussmaul sign may occur. Pulmonary auscultation, abdominal examination, and assessment for edema complete evaluation of the distribution of congestion.

Clinicopathologic correlation must also consider what does not correspond. Tamponade is a consequence of pressure, not a histologic form; constriction is a hemodynamic behavior, not a synonym for calcification. Fibrinous pericarditis may heal without sequelae, and an organized lesion may retain treatable inflammatory activity. Clinical assessment determines which investigations are necessary and with what urgency, preventing a descriptive label obtained from imaging or a limited sample from replacing analysis of the patient as a whole.

Investigations and pathological diagnosis

The pathway begins by demonstrating the pericardial syndrome and its consequences. Electrocardiogram, inflammatory biomarkers, troponin, and echocardiography provide the initial framework. Clinical criteria for pericarditis allow inflammation to be recognized in the appropriate context but do not automatically classify the lesion as serous, fibrinous, or granulomatous. There are no single international clinical criteria that assign each pathological form with certainty. According to specialist documents on pericardial imaging, defining the type of lesion requires integration of structural findings and, when available and indicated, direct analysis of material.

Echocardiography describes the amount, distribution, and echogenicity of a collection and any strands, septa, or masses. Echogenic material may represent fibrin, clots, or other debris and does not by itself identify purulent pericarditis. Even an apparently simple collection may have an important cause. The examination simultaneously evaluates chamber compression and respiratory variation in filling. Computed tomography defines calcifications, location of collections, and mediastinal relationships; hyperdense contents may suggest blood or protein-rich material, but density does not replace sampling and must be interpreted in relation to contrast administration and technique.

Magnetic resonance imaging distinguishes features of edema and tissue abnormality and helps assess inflammatory activity and constrictive physiology. Fluid signal varies with protein content, blood, and the stage of blood products; this variability makes a rigid match between a single signal and contents inappropriate. Late pericardial enhancement is not equivalent to a histologic report and does not establish whether inflammation is viral, autoimmune, or neoplastic. A result should therefore be stated at the level of certainty supported by the evidence, for example a complex collection or pericardium with signs of inflammation, without claiming an unproven microscopic classification.

The decision to sample fluid or tissue depends on clinical indication and expected usefulness. Tamponade, suspected purulent infection, suspected neoplasia, and some persistent effusions may justify drainage; mild pericarditis with a rapid response does not require biopsy to assign a morphological label. When sampling is planned, specimen allocation should be agreed before the procedure. Material for cultures and microbiologic tests should not be fixed in formalin; a separate portion can be sent for histology, cytology, and cell-block preparation. A specimen that is entirely fixed may make some necessary investigations impossible.

Examination of pericardial fluid includes gross description, cell count and differential, selected biochemical analyses, cytology, and microbiology according to the clinical question. Neutrophil predominance points toward an acute infection in the appropriate context, whereas lymphocyte predominance may occur in tuberculosis, neoplasms, and other conditions. Protein and lactate dehydrogenase should not be interpreted by automatically applying thresholds developed for pleural fluid: pericardial composition and context influence classification. Low glucose, blood, or high protein content may support hypotheses but are not universal pathognomonic criteria.

When purulent disease is suspected, Gram staining, appropriate cultures, and assessment of blood cultures and extracardiac foci are requested. For tuberculosis, mycobacterial detection and culture and molecular tests are integrated; adenosine deaminase and, where available and appropriate, other fluid markers have a supportive role without indiscriminately replacing etiologic demonstration. Sensitivity depends on pathogen burden, previous treatment, and specimen quality. A negative test therefore does not always have the same meaning. If suspicion of a treatable cause remains high, the choice of further specimens or alternative sampling sites should be shared with the relevant specialists.

Cytology searches for neoplastic cells and evaluates the inflammatory background. Adequate material, a cell block, and immunophenotyping can distinguish metastatic carcinoma, hematologic neoplasia, and mesothelial proliferation according to context. Reactive mesothelial cells may appear atypical; a finding of atypia does not automatically equal malignancy. Cytology and biopsy sample different aspects: tumor cells may be present in fluid with a nonrepresentative tissue fragment, whereas some lesions require tissue and architecture for definition. A negative result from a single method should not be converted into absolute exclusion when suspicion persists.

Histologic examination describes the surface, type and distribution of the infiltrate, fibrin, necrosis, granulomas, fibrosis, calcifications, and possible neoplastic cells. Special stains for mycobacteria and fungi, immunohistochemistry, and further tests are selected according to the finding. A diagnosis of nonspecific fibrinous pericarditis is legitimate when no etiologic feature emerges, but it must be read as a description of the material studied. In a limited biopsy, a focal lesion may be missed; samples taken from different regions and guided by visible abnormalities may improve representativeness when invasive investigation is justified.

After the report, assessment returns to the patient. A granulomatous form requires infectious-disease and systemic correlation; a neoplasm is typed and staged; fibrosis is linked to hemodynamic findings and the status of the liver, kidneys, and nutrition. Any diagnosis of constriction is based on the combination of Doppler echocardiography, imaging, and, in uncertain cases, invasive pressure assessment. This integration prevents two opposite errors: assigning a certain cause to nonspecific morphology and ignoring a clinically important process because the sample does not contain the expected finding.

Treatment and prognosis in relation to the substrate

Therapy is not chosen exclusively on the basis of the color of the fluid or the histologic term. It must correct the cause, control inflammation when present, and resolve mechanical consequences. An uncomplicated idiopathic serous or fibrinous form may be treated with aspirin or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug together with colchicine, according to activity, comorbidities, and tolerability. The same morphology in a patient with tuberculosis, uremia, or neoplasia instead requires different etiologic treatment. The absence of a visible agent in tissue does not justify ignoring other convincing evidence of infection.

In purulent forms, systemic antibiotics and drainage are complementary interventions. A dense, septated collection may not be adequately evacuated by a single aspiration; persistent fever, sepsis, or residual material requires reassessment of source control. Surgical drainage may permit evacuation, removal of adhesions, and sampling in selected situations. Antimicrobial therapy is initially guided by the clinical setting and then adapted to the microorganisms and susceptibility. Using a corticosteroid to reduce fever without treating the infection can compromise management.

Intrapericardial fibrinolysis has been used in loculated infected collections to facilitate evacuation and reduce organization, but requires specialist selection, assessment of bleeding risk, and procedural expertise. It is not a substitute for antibiotics or surgical drainage when these are necessary. Likewise, the presence of fibrin on echocardiography in uncomplicated pericarditis is not by itself an indication for fibrinolytics. The decision derives from the concrete need to achieve control of the collection, not from an intention to eliminate every visible strand.

The caseous or granulomatous form requires the most accurate possible etiologic definition. When tuberculosis is recognized, combination antimycobacterial therapy is fundamental and must take account of susceptibility, interactions, and host conditions. Any addition of corticosteroids does not derive automatically from the caseous appearance but from clinical recommendations and the individual balance, including immune status. In fungal infections, antifungal choice depends on the pathogen and extent of disease. A noninfectious granulomatous reaction instead requires demonstration and treatment of the responsible disorder after infectious alternatives have been adequately assessed.

Hemorrhagic collections must be managed according to hemodynamics and the source of bleeding. Tamponade and suspected cardiac or vascular injury may require urgent intervention, often surgery when repair is necessary or when the material is clotted. Anticoagulants and coagulopathies are reassessed considering bleeding risk and the antithrombotic indication. In neoplasia, drainage can rapidly improve symptoms, but the likelihood of recurrence depends on disease control and lymphatic drainage. A pericardial window or other local strategies are selected according to recurrences, anatomy, and treatment goals.

The presence of granulation tissue or fibrosis does not automatically mandate pericardiectomy. When limitation of filling is accompanied by inflammatory activity and the patient is stable, a reversible component may justify medical therapy and reassessment. Persistent symptomatic constriction with an established scar substrate instead requires surgical evaluation at an experienced center. Anatomical adhesion alone without symptoms and without physiological limitation is not equivalent to this indication. Extensive calcifications, previous radiotherapy, prior surgery, and associated myocardial injury modify operative risk and strategy.

In chronic forms with cholesterol crystals, the associated cause and the need for drainage or surgical treatment are assessed if the effusion recurs or constriction develops. Evidence is derived mainly from limited case series and does not justify a universal pharmacologic protocol. An eosinophilic infiltrate requires investigation of relevant drugs, infections, and systemic diseases; treating it as a single entity without this distinction invites error. Even for rare forms, treatment quality depends more on etiologic and functional assessment than on the availability of a detailed pathological label.

The prognosis ranges from complete healing to constrictive fibrosis, tamponade, or consequences of systemic disease. Fibrin may be reabsorbed and does not necessarily imply scar formation; conversely, a purulent or tuberculous collection may carry a significant risk of organization even after initial control. Blood alone does not indicate an oncologic prognosis, whereas demonstration of neoplastic infiltration radically changes the significance of the picture. Follow-up links evolution of the material and thickness to symptoms, function, and activity of the cause, avoiding judgment of recovery based only on improvement of an image.

Complications of the different pathological forms

Persistence of inflammation is one of the main clinical consequences of lesions that have not completely resolved. Pain, fever, and functional limitation may continue even as the collection decreases. In immune-mediated forms, new reactivations may occur; in infections, persistence should prompt assessment for an uncontrolled focus, resistance, or incomplete drainage. Residual morphology alone, however, is not sufficient to distinguish these mechanisms. A thin adhesion or an area of stable fibrosis may represent a sequela without activity and may not require further immunosuppression.

Fibrin, cells, and clots may produce loculations, with irregular distribution of the collection and reduced efficacy of percutaneous drainage. A residual compartment may sustain infection or locally compress a cardiac chamber. This problem is particularly important after surgery, in hemorrhagic collections, and in suppurative forms. The amount drained does not prove that the entire cavity has been emptied, and deterioration requires anatomical reassessment. The absence of a large circumferential effusion therefore does not exclude a significant mechanical complication.

Tamponade may complicate different types of exudate. Pus, blood, and serous fluid have different causes but can all raise pericardial pressure enough to limit filling. The rate of accumulation and capacity for distension explain the variability of presentations. In rapidly developing hemorrhagic forms, deterioration may be sudden, whereas in chronic collections compensation may precede a critical phase. Sepsis, hypovolemia, and myocardial dysfunction can further reduce tolerance. Therapeutic urgency depends on this hemodynamic behavior, not on the histologic category.

Organization of the material may produce adhesions and partial or complete obliteration of the pericardial space. If the scar limits filling and dissociates intrathoracic from intracardiac pressures, constriction develops. The visceral pericardium may contribute decisively, explaining some effusive-constrictive forms and the need for careful surgical assessment. Not all adhesions have this consequence, and calcification is a possible outcome, not a requirement. Distinguishing a reversible inflammatory phase from a mature scar influences both treatment and appropriate timing of intervention.

Persistent constriction produces systemic congestion, with hepatomegaly, ascites, edema, renal deterioration, and, in advanced cases, nutritional impairment. Elevated venous pressure can alter organ function even when left ventricular ejection fraction appears preserved. Diagnostic delay can therefore worsen the possibility of recovery after correction of the mechanical cause. In irradiated patients or those with concomitant myocardial disease, some symptoms may persist after pericardiectomy because the pericardial obstacle was not the only mechanism of heart failure.

In purulent forms, sepsis, extension to adjacent tissues, and recurrence of the collection are particularly relevant. Organization of pus and fibrin can make complete control difficult without an adequate invasive approach. In infectious granulomatous forms, extracardiac involvement contributes to prognosis; in neoplastic forms, effusion and constriction may reflect a more extensive infiltrative process. Local injury and severity of the underlying disease must be kept distinct because successful drainage does not necessarily coincide with etiologic control.

Sampling and treatment add their own risks. Puncture, drainage, and surgery may cause bleeding, cardiac or vascular injury, arrhythmias, and infections; complex collections may require repeated procedures. A poorly representative specimen may also produce a diagnostic error if interpreted as evidence excluding the suspected disease. Correlation among the report, imaging, and clinical course reduces this risk. The final objective is not to assign a morphological category to every patient at any cost, but to recognize lesions that change prognosis and treatment and to describe precisely what has actually been demonstrated.

Bibliography
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. Roberts WC. Pericardial heart disease: its morphologic features and its causes. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center). 2005;18(1):38-55.
5. Souza PMM et al. “Bread and butter” fibrinous pericarditis. Autopsy & Case Reports. 2016;6(4):5-7.
6. 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.
7. Sagristà-Sauleda J et al. Purulent pericarditis: review of a 20-year experience in a general hospital. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1993;22(6):1661-1665.
8. Mayosi BM et al. Tuberculous pericarditis. Circulation. 2005;112(23):3608-3616.
9. Saab J et al. Diagnostic yield of cytopathology in evaluating pericardial effusions: Clinicopathologic analysis of 419 specimens. Cancer Cytopathology. 2017;125(2):128-137.
10. Welch TD et al. Echocardiographic diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis: Mayo Clinic criteria. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2014;7(3):526-534.
11. Imazio M et al. Risk of constrictive pericarditis after acute pericarditis. Circulation. 2011;124(11):1270-1275.
12. Spodick DH. Acute cardiac tamponade. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;349(7):684-690.