Pericarditis

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

Pericarditis is an inflammatory process involving one or both pericardial layers and may present with chest pain, friction rub, electrocardiographic changes, effusion, and signs of systemic or local inflammation. It is a syndrome with different causes, not an etiologic diagnosis: the same clinical picture may result from infection, an immune-mediated response, cardiac injury, or a systemic disease. Inflammation may remain confined to the pericardium, be associated with myocardial involvement, or progress to mechanical complications; fluid is not required and, conversely, an effusion alone does not establish pericarditis.

The true frequency is difficult to measure because mild forms may go unrecognized or be treated without hospitalization. Case series from Western countries are dominated by idiopathic or presumably viral forms, but this distribution changes in immunosuppressed populations, patients with cancer, and areas with a high prevalence of tuberculosis. After a first idiopathic episode not treated with colchicine, approximately 15-30% of patients may develop an incessant or recurrent course; the probability depends on the population, outcome definition, and treatment. These data should not be indiscriminately extrapolated to purulent, tuberculous, or neoplastic pericarditis, which have different natural histories and risks.

Temporal classification describes the course, whereas etiologic classification identifies the responsible process. Acute pericarditis corresponds to a recent-onset presentation. Activity that continues without true remission defines an incessant course; recurrent pericarditis instead requires a previous documented episode and an interval of remission before renewed activity. In traditional clinical terminology, the symptom-free interval used to define recurrence is at least 4-6 weeks, and persistence beyond three months identifies a chronic course. Chronology should be reconstructed from clinical documentation, without classifying every flare during an incomplete taper as a new episode.

Another distinction concerns inflammatory activity: fever, elevation of C-reactive protein, and evidence of inflammation on magnetic resonance support an inflammatory phenotype, but they may not all be present at the same time. Some patients have normal blood values despite convincing local findings; others have persistent pain without current evidence of inflammation. Precision medicine in this setting means recognizing these differences and verifying that diagnosis, treatment intensity, and duration of therapy correspond to the disease that has actually been demonstrated.

Etiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology

Causes are divided into infectious and noninfectious, but the distinction must be applied rigorously. Demonstration of a recent respiratory viral infection does not automatically prove viral pericarditis; direct identification of the pathogen in pericardial material is not normally required in uncomplicated forms and is reserved for settings in which the result changes management. The definition of idiopathic therefore remains appropriate when no cause emerges after an evaluation proportionate to risk. It does not justify indiscriminately excluding other etiologies, especially in the presence of persistent fever, a large effusion, immunosuppression, or failure to respond to treatment.

Bacterial infections may spread from pneumonia, empyema, endocarditis, or other foci, reach the pericardium hematogenously, or be introduced after trauma or a procedure. In the purulent form, microbial proliferation, neutrophil recruitment, and tissue destruction generate an exudate that may organize into septated collections. Tuberculous pericarditis produces a granulomatous response of variable intensity, with exudation, possible caseous necrosis, and subsequent fibrosis. Morphology also depends on immune status: the absence of well-formed granulomas does not exclude disease in an immunosuppressed patient. Fungal and parasitic infections are less common and require diagnostic selection based on exposures and host vulnerability.

Among noninfectious causes, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitides, and other immune-mediated diseases may involve the pericardium with serositis. In these cases, injury may be driven by adaptive immune cells, autoantibodies, immune complexes, and cytokines, with differing importance in individual diseases. In autoinflammatory syndromes, such as familial Mediterranean fever and tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome, dysregulation of innate immunity instead predominates. This distinction does not imply two completely separate biological compartments: in common idiopathic and recurrent forms, different components may coexist, without a biomarker capable of assigning the mechanism with certainty in every individual.

Cardiac injury represents another causal setting. Early inflammation after myocardial infarction may accompany extension of injury to the epicardial surface, whereas post-cardiac injury syndromes may emerge after a latent period and also involve the pleura. Surgery, ablation, interventional procedures, and trauma can therefore cause both immediate mechanical injury and a subsequent inflammatory response. Radiotherapy can damage the microcirculation and supporting tissues, with late fibrotic sequelae and possible associated myocardial and valvular injury. Some drugs cause immune-mediated reactions, lupus-like syndromes, or toxicity; with oncologic immunotherapies, the concurrent possibility of myocarditis makes myocardial assessment particularly important.

Uremia is a recognized condition, but the molecular steps that produce inflammation are not fully defined and should not be reduced to a single demonstrated toxin. In patients on dialysis, inadequate dialysis, volume overload, and independent causes must also be considered. Neoplasia can cause infiltration of the layers, lymphatic obstruction, hemorrhage, and reactive inflammation; however, a collection in a patient with cancer does not prove malignant infiltration. Immunosuppression, advanced renal failure, tuberculosis exposure, recent surgery, and oncologic therapies are predisposing conditions that modify the probability of different causes, not interchangeable etiologic equivalents.

The local response begins with activation or injury of mesothelial and stromal cells and recruitment of immune cells. Microbial components and signals released by injured cells are recognized by innate immune receptors. Proinflammatory signaling pathways promote mediator production, expression of adhesion molecules, and leukocyte migration. Increased permeability allows plasma proteins to escape; fibrinogen is converted to fibrin, which deposits on the layers and can form bridges within the pericardial space. The result is loss of the normal gliding surface, edema, and, to a variable extent, effusion.

An important role is played by the NLRP3 inflammasome, a multiprotein complex involved in sensing cellular stress and injury. Assembly of the complex with the adaptor protein and procaspase-1 allows activation of caspase-1 and maturation of cytokines such as interleukin-1β. Release of interleukin-1α from injured cells and production of interleukin-1β may sustain a local amplification loop. Findings in human tissue and experimental models support this pathway, while the efficacy of interleukin-1 blockers documents its clinical relevance in subgroups of recurrent pericarditis. However, this does not demonstrate that every case of pericarditis depends exclusively on NLRP3 or that every step observed in animals is identical in humans.

Colchicine binds to tubulin and interferes with microtubule dynamics, affecting leukocyte functions and processes related to inflammasome activation. This mechanism differs from cyclooxygenase inhibition by aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs, which reduces production of prostanoids involved in pain and inflammation. The rationale for combination therapy is therefore to act on complementary components of the response, without equating colchicine with an immediate analgesic. Interleukin-6 and other mediators can contribute to the hepatic acute-phase response: C-reactive protein reflects this systemic response but does not directly and comprehensively measure activity in every pericardial compartment.

The persistence or recurrence of inflammation may depend on a stimulus that has not been eliminated, an immune response that persists after the initial injury, a systemic disease, or insufficient therapeutic control. The presence of autoantibodies or genetic associations in some case series suggests biological heterogeneity, but does not provide a universal causal test. A favorable response to an interleukin-1 antagonist is therapeutic information, not a sufficient criterion for diagnosing a monogenic disease. Likewise, relapse during corticosteroid tapering does not by itself demonstrate a distinct autoimmune etiology.

Pain arises mainly from involvement of sensitive pericardial structures and adjacent tissues; its respiratory and positional character reflects the relationship among inflamed surfaces, cardiac motion, and breathing. The fibrous pericardium does not directly generate the cardiac electrical signal: ST-segment and PR changes reflect involvement of epicardial layers and adjacent atrial regions. An elevated troponin requires assessment for associated myocardial injury, without automatically attributing the increase to ischemic necrosis. The distinction between predominant pericarditis with myocardial involvement and predominant myocarditis affects surveillance, prognosis, and return to exercise.

Effusion depends on the balance between exudation and lymphatic drainage. When pericardial pressure becomes high enough to restrict filling, tamponade may occur even with relatively small volumes if accumulation is rapid. Repair of inflammation may instead produce adhesions and collagen, reducing distensibility. Constriction alters transmission of intrathoracic pressures and accentuates ventricular interdependence, but it is not the inevitable outcome of recurrences. Reversible inflammation, residual fibrosis, and true hemodynamic limitation should be regarded as distinct dimensions that may coexist in different proportions.

Clinical manifestations

Assessment begins by reconstructing the chest pain. The patient may describe a sharp or continuous retrosternal or precordial pain, worsened by deep inspiration, coughing, and the supine position. Improvement when sitting up or leaning forward and radiation to the trapezius ridge are suggestive features, but the presentation may overlap with other disorders. Duration, relationship with exertion and meals, course over the preceding hours, any radiation to the limbs, and autonomic symptoms should be characterized. It is not appropriate to use a single pain feature to exclude a coronary syndrome, especially in patients with cardiovascular risk or equivocal electrocardiographic findings.

Associated symptoms are then assessed. Fever, fatigue, and malaise are compatible with systemic inflammation; high and persistent fever, especially with chills or impaired general condition, heightens concern for a specific cause. Dyspnea may result from respiratory pain, effusion, tamponade, pleural involvement, or myocardial dysfunction. Palpitations, syncope, and marked reduction in exercise tolerance require consideration of arrhythmias and myocardial involvement. In older adults, immunosuppressed patients, and uremic or neoplastic forms, pain and fever may be subtle or absent.

The remote and recent history should seek a causal context. A preceding respiratory or gastrointestinal syndrome is recorded without turning it into virologic proof. A cardiac procedure, myocardial infarction, trauma, or surgery requires distinction among immediate injury, bleeding, and a delayed inflammatory syndrome. Joint, skin, and mucosal symptoms, documented infections, tuberculosis exposure, oncologic disease, renal failure, radiotherapy, and medications should be investigated. The history should also clarify whether anti-inflammatory therapy has already been started, because it can alter temperature, pain, and biomarker values at the time of assessment.

In forms with multiple episodes, the decisive element is chronology. It should be reconstructed how the first diagnosis was confirmed, whether remission occurred, which objective signs accompanied relapses, and when medications were reduced or stopped. Adherence, tolerability, and the actual dose taken must be verified, because prescribed treatment does not necessarily match treatment actually taken. Isolated pain that recurs months later requires independent assessment, whereas a symptom that never disappeared during therapy may indicate incessant disease, residual injury, or a nonpericardial cause. The distinction is not semantic: it determines the choice of investigations and whether escalation of immunomodulation is appropriate.

Physical examination begins with the general condition and vital signs. Tachycardia, tachypnea, and fever are common but nonspecific. Hypotension, narrowing of pulse pressure, cold extremities, altered mental status, and reduced urine output suggest impaired cardiac output. Normal blood pressure does not exclude compensated tamponade. The jugular veins are inspected, peripheral perfusion is assessed, and pulsus paradoxus is sought when the context warrants it, without assigning it absolute diagnostic value. Respiratory conditions and pre-existing cardiac pressures may make it absent or difficult to interpret.

The pericardial friction rub is the most characteristic auscultatory finding. It is a superficial, scratchy sound, best heard along the left sternal border and sometimes accentuated by having the patient lean forward. It may have one or more components in relation to the cardiac cycle and change rapidly over time; therefore, a negative initial auscultation does not exclude the diagnosis. Distinguishing it from a pleural rub and a cardiac murmur requires attention to its relationship with breathing and the cardiac cycle. Muffled heart sounds may accompany a large effusion, but this is an insensitive finding and does not quantify the collection.

The examination continues with pulmonary, abdominal, and peripheral assessment. A pleural effusion may be part of serositis, whereas diffuse crackles may indicate congestion from myocardial involvement or an alternative diagnosis. Hepatomegaly, ascites, edema, and the Kussmaul sign suggest impaired right-sided filling, especially when the course is chronic. Skin eruptions, arthritis, lymphadenopathy, and signs of localized infection contribute to etiologic assessment. The task of physical examination is therefore twofold: to strengthen the suspicion of pericardial inflammation and to identify conditions that make empirical outpatient management insufficient.

Severity does not coincide with pain intensity. A highly symptomatic patient may have an uncomplicated form, whereas a person with mild pain may have a hemodynamically significant collection. Even apparent improvement after analgesia does not eliminate the need to exclude complications. At the end of the assessment, it should be established whether the picture is predominantly painful-inflammatory, effusive, congestive, or myopericardial, and whether there are features suggesting infection, neoplasia, or systemic disease. This definition guides the next level of investigations and the choice of care setting.

Investigations and diagnosis

When pericarditis is initially suspected, the aim is to document the syndrome and immediately recognize dangerous alternatives. The following are indicated: 12-lead electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, and tests including complete blood count, C-reactive protein, renal function, electrolytes, and cardiac troponin. Other tests, including chest radiography, are used to assess the lungs, pleurae, and concomitant diagnoses. Troponin should be interpreted in the clinical context and, when necessary, with serial measurements: it documents myocardial injury but does not by itself identify myocarditis, ischemia, or etiology. When acute coronary syndrome is suspected, coronary evaluation follows the relevant emergency pathway.

The electrocardiogram may show relatively diffuse ST-segment elevation and PR depression, with possible reciprocal changes in aVR and sometimes V1. Distribution, dynamics, and the clinical picture should be compared with myocardial infarction, early repolarization, and other causes of ST-segment abnormalities. The classic electrocardiographic stages are not seen in every patient, and their absence does not invalidate an otherwise documented diagnosis. A minor nonspecific abnormality should not automatically be counted as a typical finding. A normal tracing is possible, especially in recurrences and when inflammation does not significantly involve electrically active epicardial structures.

Echocardiography assesses effusion, any signs of impaired filling, ventricular function, and associated diagnoses. A small new effusion may support the diagnosis, but the examination may be normal in pericarditis without a collection. A new reduction in systolic function shifts concern toward more substantial myocardial involvement. Echocardiography does not systematically demonstrate tissue inflammation, and a known chronic collection should not be used as proof of a new episode without verifying a change. In tamponade, clinical decision-making integrates chamber compression, flow variations, venous pressure, and the patient's condition.

The 2025 ESC guidelines formalized a definite clinical diagnosis based on a compatible presentation accompanied by more than one additional finding. The presentation may include pericarditic pain or an equivalent clinical picture consistent with the syndrome; findings must be interpreted in context and after assessment of alternatives. A compatible presentation associated with only one additional finding constitutes a possible diagnosis, requiring integration proportionate to risk. This framework should not be confused with the historical 2015 rule of two of four elements, which is still used when interpreting many earlier studies.

• Clinical diagnostic criteria for pericarditis according to ESC 2025. A compatible presentation must be accompanied by at least two of the following additional findings for a definite clinical classification.
• Pericardial friction rub documented on auscultation.
• Typical electrocardiographic changes, such as PR depression or diffuse ST-segment elevation.
• Elevation of C-reactive protein.
• New or increasing pericardial effusion.
• Evidence of pericardial inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging, with edema and/or late gadolinium enhancement.

The 2025 ACC clinical guidance uses wording that emphasizes a pericarditic presentation accompanied by at least one additional clinical, laboratory, or imaging element. The two documents should not be merged into a hybrid numerical rule. In practice, it is essential to state the reference being applied and the level of certainty reached. Moving from simply counting findings to clinical integration does not justify diagnosing the syndrome from nonspecific pain and a mildly abnormal biomarker: C-reactive protein, for example, can rise in many extracardiac diseases and requires interpretation consistent with the overall clinical picture.

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is particularly useful when the initial picture is uncertain, in recurrences, when symptoms and biomarkers are discordant, when myocarditis is suspected, or when constriction is possible. Pericardial edema on appropriate sequences and late enhancement can document tissue involvement not recognized by echocardiography. The significance of enhancement should be graded: it may persist during recovery and, in isolation, does not indicate that treatment should be prolonged indefinitely. The result should be interpreted in relation to technical quality, pericardial thickness, clinical activity, and changes over time. Magnetic resonance imaging is not mandatory for every uncomplicated acute episode with a clear diagnosis.

Computed tomography is chosen when details are needed regarding calcifications, loculated collections, masses, thoracic findings, or surgical planning, or when magnetic resonance imaging is not feasible. Thickening and enhancement may support pericardial involvement but do not always distinguish inflammation, fibrosis, and tumor infiltration. Second-level investigations should answer a question capable of changing management. Serial searches for minimal abnormalities without clinical consequences may instead inappropriately prolong the label of active disease. No imaging method alone identifies all possible causes.

Once the syndrome has been documented, risk stratification is performed. Fever above 38 °C, subacute onset, a large effusion, tamponade, and lack of response to appropriate anti-inflammatory therapy after about one week are features requiring greater attention and often hospitalization and etiologic investigation. A large effusion is conventionally recognized by an echo-free space greater than 20 mm, but measurement and location do not replace hemodynamic interpretation. Immunosuppression, trauma, anticoagulant therapy, and myocardial involvement further modify decisions. Low risk may permit outpatient management with early follow-up, provided that response can be verified and deterioration recognized.

The search for the cause proceeds in a targeted manner. Blood cultures and microbiologic analysis of fluid are central when bacterial disease is suspected; testing for tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and other pathogens is selected according to exposures and context. Routine viral serology does not demonstrate pericardial infection and rarely changes treatment of uncomplicated forms. Autoantibodies should be requested when the history and examination suggest systemic disease, because isolated low-titer positivity may be nonspecific. In recurrences with periodic fevers, early onset, family history, or other characteristic manifestations, specialist assessment for autoinflammatory syndromes may be appropriate.

Pericardiocentesis is not a routine diagnostic procedure in mild pericarditis. It becomes essential in tamponade and may be indicated when suspected infection or neoplasia requires a sample or when the effusion is symptomatic and persistent. Fluid is sent for cytology, cell count, cultures, and specific tests consistent with the clinical question. Biopsy is reserved for selected cases, especially when tissue characterization is required. The presence of blood, fibrin, or lymphocytes guides reasoning but does not constitute an etiologic diagnosis; a negative result may be influenced by sampling and does not automatically close the investigation.

The differential diagnosis includes acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary embolism, acute aortic syndrome, pneumothorax, pneumonia, pleuritis, and musculoskeletal or gastroesophageal causes. Myocarditis may coexist and should be recognized by integrating biomarkers, imaging, and the clinical picture. After diagnosis, further investigations define myocardial involvement, size and course of the effusion, any constrictive physiology, renal and hepatic function, and treatment risks. Follow-up should verify that symptom remission corresponds to coherent recovery, without confusing a stable anatomical sequela with persistent activity.

Treatment and prognosis

Treatment should control inflammation, prevent recurrences and complications, and correct an identified cause. Before intensifying therapy, it is necessary to verify that there is active disease and that the picture is not due to an infection requiring antimicrobials, a collection requiring drainage, or an alternative diagnosis. In uncomplicated cases, physical activity is reduced during the symptomatic phase and until remission; return is individualized on the basis of symptoms, biomarkers, cardiac function, and imaging when indicated. Myocardial involvement requires specific assessment of arrhythmic risk and return to exercise, without automatically applying the same program used for isolated pericarditis.

First-line treatment in appropriate idiopathic and immune-mediated forms consists of aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at anti-inflammatory doses, together with colchicine. In adults, commonly used regimens include ibuprofen 600-800 mg every eight hours or aspirin 750-1000 mg every eight hours, with the choice adapted to the patient's condition. Aspirin is often preferred when there is a concomitant antiplatelet indication or a post-infarction setting. Multiple anti-inflammatory drugs of the same class are not indiscriminately combined, and gastric protection is considered. Renal function, blood pressure, bleeding risk, ulcer disease, heart failure, and anticoagulant therapy may make these regimens inappropriate or require an alternative.

The full-dose phase is continued until convincing control of pain and inflammatory activity is achieved. In simple forms, an initial period of one or two weeks may be sufficient, whereas persistent cases require longer; this is not an automatic deadline. Tapering is gradual, with reassessment if symptoms recur. When C-reactive protein was elevated, normalization contributes to the decision; when it was not informative, the other relevant clinical and imaging elements must be used. Analgesic relief in the first hours does not mean that the inflammatory process has ended.

Colchicine is generally administered without a loading dose. A validated adult regimen uses 0.5 mg once daily in patients weighing less than 70 kg and 0.5 mg twice daily at 70 kg or more, with adjustment for age, tolerability, renal and hepatic function, and interactions. The usual duration is at least three months for the first episode and at least six months for recurrences, with individualization according to the course. In the ICAP trial, addition to conventional therapy reduced the combined outcome of incessant or recurrent disease; the benefit does not mean that every patient is protected from a new flare. Diarrhea is a common limitation and may require dose reduction.

The safety of colchicine also depends on its therapeutic window and interactions. P-glycoprotein inhibitors and inhibitors of CYP3A4 metabolism, such as some macrolides, azoles, and other drugs, can increase exposure; renal or hepatic failure makes the risk more important. Medication reconciliation is therefore essential, especially when antibiotics or immunosuppressants are introduced. Myalgia, weakness, cytopenias, or other systemic signs require reassessment. It is not appropriate to automatically maintain the standard dose in frail patients or those with severe organ impairment, nor to manage toxicity simply by adding symptomatic medications.

Corticosteroids are reserved for selected indications, such as specific immune-mediated diseases, contraindications to or failure of first-line therapy, and settings in which the overall balance makes them appropriate. Before their use, bacterial and tuberculous infections in particular should be considered. When indicated, low or moderate doses are generally preferred, for example prednisone 0.2-0.5 mg/kg/day, avoiding routine use of high doses in idiopathic forms. Colchicine is continued when feasible. Corticosteroids can rapidly control symptoms but are associated with a greater risk of treatment dependence and relapse during tapering; this association is also influenced by the greater complexity of patients who receive them.

The taper is started when remission is stable and proceeds more slowly at low doses, especially when previous reductions have caused reactivation. It is not advisable to reduce all drugs simultaneously without being able to interpret the response. A relapse should prompt reconsideration of activity, adherence, and cause, rather than simply repeating high-dose courses indefinitely. Osteoporosis, glycemic abnormalities, hypertension, weight gain, cataract, infectious risk, and adrenal suppression enter into the balance of prolonged therapy. The need for corticosteroids to maintain control is a reason to discuss steroid-sparing options.

The antagonists of interleukin-1 have the most convincing evidence in patients with recurrent pericarditis and an inflammatory phenotype, particularly in the presence of colchicine resistance or corticosteroid dependence. Anakinra antagonizes the interleukin-1 receptor and therefore the action of both isoforms; rilonacept is a fusion protein that binds interleukin-1α and interleukin-1β. In adults, anakinra up to 100 mg subcutaneously daily and rilonacept with a 320 mg loading dose followed by 160 mg weekly have been studied. These regimens do not replace verification of individual conditions of use, renal function, and available indications in the care setting.

AIRTRIP documented a reduction in recurrences with anakinra in a small selected group of patients with colchicine resistance and corticosteroid dependence. In RHAPSODY, after an initial phase with rilonacept, responders were randomized to continuation or withdrawal of the drug: during the randomized phase, recurrences occurred in 2 of 30 treated patients and 23 of 31 assigned to placebo. The randomized-withdrawal design is important for interpreting the result, which concerns a selected responsive population and does not demonstrate a need for a biologic in an uncomplicated first episode. The optimal duration and methods of discontinuation still require individualization.

Before and during interleukin-1 blockade, active infections, tuberculosis risk and other relevant infectious risks, vaccination status, complete blood count, and liver function are assessed; with rilonacept, the lipid profile is also considered. Injection-site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections are among the observed events. Immunomodulatory treatment is not started as a simple diagnostic trial in a patient with fever and a collection of uncertain cause. Clinical control may allow reduction of other drugs, but discontinuation must be planned because suppression of the inflammatory pathway does not always mean that the predisposition to reactivation has disappeared.

Other options, such as azathioprine and intravenous immunoglobulin, may be considered in selected cases and appropriate immunologic settings, with a lower level of evidence than the major trials of colchicine and interleukin-1 blockade. Azathioprine acts slowly and is not a rescue analgesic; it requires hematologic and hepatic monitoring and assessment of toxicity risk. Immunoglobulins are supported mainly by small series. Therapies targeting other cytokines and specific inflammasome inhibitors are research prospects and should not be presented as generalized standards. Choice should derive from phenotype and comorbidities, not from an automatic sequence of drugs.

Treatment of the specific cause remains decisive. Purulent pericarditis requires drainage and systemic antibiotics, subsequently adapted to microbiologic results; tuberculosis is treated with combination antimycobacterial therapy according to susceptibility and context. In uremic forms, adequacy of dialysis is important, whereas rheumatic diseases and neoplasms require coordinated treatment of the underlying disease. In pregnancy, pediatric age, and advanced renal failure, treatment must be adapted to the specific conditions, avoiding uncritical transfer of the regimen used in a healthy adult. Use of steroids or biologics in these settings requires an individual balance and specialist collaboration.

Tamponade requires urgent drainage when there is hemodynamic compromise. In potentially reversible inflammatory constriction, a period of treatment and close observation may be appropriate; chronic symptomatic fibrotic constriction instead requires assessment for pericardiectomy. Even highly refractory pericarditis may, exceptionally, be considered for surgery at an experienced center after the disease has been documented and medical options assessed. The decision does not derive from the number of episodes alone. Completeness of resection, etiology, myocardial involvement, and organ status influence risk and outcome.

The prognosis of idiopathic forms is generally favorable for survival and risk of constriction, but they can be burdensome because of pain and effects on quality of life. In a prospective cohort of 500 first episodes, constriction developed in 0.48% of idiopathic or viral cases, compared with a higher proportion in specific etiologies: the finding demonstrates the importance of cause and is not an individual prediction. Early follow-up, often after about one week in outpatients, verifies response, tolerability, and the need for further investigations. Subsequent follow-up aims at remission, prudent discontinuation of medications, recovery of exercise, and recognition of a course requiring specialist reassessment.

Complications

The most common consequence in idiopathic forms is an incessant or recurrent course. Persistent activity may prolong pain, functional limitation, and the need for treatment; recurrences introduce new symptomatic periods after remission. In some patients, the mechanism includes autoinflammatory amplification, but unrecognized causes, insufficient adherence, and premature medication tapering may contribute. Not all flares have the same prognostic significance, and their number alone cannot predict constriction. Objective documentation of activity remains essential before defining refractoriness.

Pericardial effusion is a manifestation of the syndrome and may become a complication when it increases, persists, or interferes with filling. Increased vascular permeability introduces fluid into the space, while inflammation may impair its removal. Fibrin and adhesions may produce loculations that make the collection heterogeneous and more difficult to drain. Rapid growth requires reconsideration of the cause, especially in the presence of high fever, neoplasia, a recent procedure, or anticoagulant therapy. The appearance of fluid should not be used as the sole measure of the severity of inflammation because activity and volume may evolve independently.

In tamponade, increased external pressure reduces filling, cardiac output, and systemic perfusion. Tachycardia and vasoconstriction temporarily support the circulation, but exhaustion of compensation can lead to shock and arrest. Severity depends on the rate of formation, distensibility, and initial intracardiac pressures. A relatively small collection can therefore be critical, whereas a large effusion may initially be tolerated. Treatment must rapidly correct the mechanical obstruction while simultaneously addressing the cause that generated it.

Constriction results from a pericardium that pathologically limits filling and interaction with respiratory pressures. It may be transient when edema and inflammation predominate or persistent in the presence of organized fibrosis. The risk is particularly important in bacterial and tuberculous forms and in other specific settings. Calcification, when present, is an anatomical finding and does not by itself measure hemodynamic severity. The resulting chronic congestion may damage the liver and kidneys, cause ascites, protein loss, and nutritional impairment, creating a cycle that also worsens operative risk.

In the effusive-constrictive form, a significant effusion coexists with a limitation to filling related mainly to the visceral pericardium. Decompression of the collection may improve the patient's condition without normalizing physiology. Persistent elevation of right-sided pressures requires integrated interpretation: right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, and other conditions can produce similar findings. It is therefore not sufficient to observe a dilated vena cava after drainage to automatically attribute the picture to constriction. The correct diagnosis determines whether to continue anti-inflammatory therapy, surveillance, or surgical assessment.

Atrial arrhythmias may occur during the episode, especially in predisposed patients. Significant ventricular arrhythmias, systolic dysfunction, or conduction disturbances require assessment for myocardial involvement, rather than considering them usual consequences of isolated pericarditis. In purulent infections, sepsis and local spread increase risk; in neoplasia, the collection may recur because of persistence of the infiltrative process. Hemorrhage can rapidly worsen the picture, but its mechanism must be recognized, distinguishing bleeding from inflammation, vascular injury, and a procedural complication.

Treatment complications can become relevant in prolonged forms. Bleeding and nephrotoxicity from anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine toxicity promoted by interactions, metabolic and bone effects of steroids, and infections during immunomodulation must be prevented and recognized. Drainage and surgery add procedural risks, including the rare pericardial decompression syndrome. The need to repeatedly escalate therapy should therefore prompt review of the diagnosis and of the balance between benefits and harms, not merely mechanical continuation of the same regimen.

Finally, recurrent pain and activity restriction can impair sleep, work, and psychological well-being. These effects do not make the disease less real, but require distinguishing biological activity from residual limitation and fear of exercise. Once remission has been achieved, functional recovery should be planned and verified. The favorable survival prognosis of idiopathic forms does not justify underestimating their clinical burden, just as persistent anxiety or nonspecific pain should not, without other evidence, become a reason to maintain immunosuppressive drugs indefinitely.

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. Wang TKM et al. 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance: An ACC Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Management of Pericarditis: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2025;86(25):2691-2719.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Imazio M et al. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369(16):1522-1528.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Imazio M et al. Risk of constrictive pericarditis after acute pericarditis. Circulation. 2011;124(11):1270-1275.
10. Spodick DH. Acute cardiac tamponade. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;349(7):684-690.
11. 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.
12. Mayosi BM et al. Tuberculous pericarditis. Circulation. 2005;112(23):3608-3616.