open access

Journal of Cardiology and Heart Failure

P e e r - R e v i e w e d  
Bi-Annual (Two issues per year)

ISSN: 3139-6429 (Online)
DOI Prefix (Crossref): 10.67238

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes Among Pericardioperitoneal, Pleuropericardial and Regular Pericardial Window Procedures: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Research Article - Volume: 2, Issue: 2, 2026 (September)
Comparative Perioperative Outcomes Among Pericardioperitoneal, Pleuropericardial and Regular Pericardial Window Procedures: A Retrospective Cohort Study Download PDF

Noor Abu Hantash1,7*, Mohammad Tayeh2, Ahmad Yaish1,7, Omar M. Nashwan3, Zainab Alsayes1, Balqis Alriyati4, Khalid Shaker Ibrahim5, Moaath Alsmady6

1School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
2,3School of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
4Department of General Surgery, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
5Cardiac Surgery Department, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan
6Cardiac Surgery Department, University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan
7Cardiothoracic Surgery Interest Group, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

*Correspondence to: Noor Abu Hantash, 1School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; 7Cardiothoracic Surgery Interest Group, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan E-mail:

Received: August 13, 2026; Manuscript No: JCHF-26-7972; Editor Assigned: August 17, 2026; PreQc No: JCHF-26-7972(PQ); Reviewed: August 20, 2026; Revised: August 21, 2026; Manuscript No: JCHF-26-7972(R); Published: September 11, 2026

ABSTRACT

Background

Pericardial window procedures are commonly performed for the management of recurrent or symptomatic pericardial effusion. Multiple surgical approaches are currently utilized, including pericardioperitoneal window (PPW), pleuropericardial window (PLW), and regular subxiphoid pericardial window procedures. However, comparative data evaluating perioperative outcomes among these techniques remain limited. This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications across the three surgical approaches.

Methods

A retrospective exploratory cohort study was conducted in Jordan University Hospital and King Abdullah University Hospital, including patients who underwent surgical pericardial window creation. Patients were divided into three groups: PPW, PLW, and regular pericardial window. Baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, postoperative complications, and length-of-stay outcomes were analyzed descriptively and comparatively. Continuous variables were reported as median [IQR], and categorical variables as n/N (%). Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used where appropriate. Effect estimates were reported with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The study cohort included 28 patients, of whom 5 underwent PPW, 7 underwent PLW, and 16 underwent regular pericardial window procedures. Median age was 55 [38–65] years in the PPW group, 52 [29–55] years in the PLW group, and 52 [36.5–58] years in the regular pericardial window group. Early 30-day complications occurred in 3/5 (60.0%) PPW patients, 5/7 (71.4%) PLW patients, and 1/16 (6.2%) regular pericardial window patients. Acute complications occurred in 40.0%, 57.1%, and 12.5% of patients, respectively. PLW demonstrated numerically shorter hospital length of stay, shorter ICU stay, lower estimated blood loss, and shorter chest tube duration compared with PPW, while the regular pericardial window group demonstrated the lowest documented early complication rate. However, no continuous perioperative outcome demonstrated a statistically conclusive difference across groups. Long-term outcomes were limited by sparse follow-up documentation.

Conclusions

In this exploratory three-group retrospective cohort study, no definitive superiority of any individual surgical approach was established. The regular pericardial window group demonstrated the lowest documented early complication rate, whereas PLW showed numerically favorable perioperative recovery characteristics in several outcomes. Interpretation of these findings is limited by the retrospective design, small sample size, baseline imbalance between groups, and incomplete long-term follow-up. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define comparative safety, recurrence risk, and long-term effectiveness among different pericardial window techniques.

Keywords: Pericardial Effusion; Pericardial Window; Pericardioperitoneal Window; Pleuropericardial Window; Perioperative Outcomes; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Cohort Study

Citation: Hantash NA, Tayeh M, Yaish A, Nashwan OM, Alsayes Z, Alriyati B, et al. (2026). Comparative Perioperative Outcomes Among Pericardioperitoneal, Pleuropericardial and Regular Pericardial Window Procedures: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Cardiol. Heart Fail. Vol.2 Iss.2, September (2026), pp:107-116.
Copyright: © 2026 Noor Abu Hantash, Mohammad Tayeh, Ahmad Yaish, Omar M. Nashwan, Zainab Alsayes, Balqis Alriyati, Khalid Shaker Ibrahim, Moaath Alsmady. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.