Effusive-constrictive pericarditis is a rare clinical syndrome characterized by concurrent pericardial effusion and pericardial constriction, with constrictive hemodynamics being persistent after the pericardial effusion is removed. The mechanism of effusive-constrictive pericarditis is thought to be visceral pericardial constriction. Pericardial effusions vary in size and age and may be transudative, exudative, sanguineous, or chylous. An effusion persisting for months to years may evolve into effusive-constrictive pericarditis. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis may present with symptoms caused by a limitation of intercardiac end-diastolic volume. These findings are secondary not only to the pericardial effusion but also to the pericardial constriction. Symptoms, as well as history and physical findings, vary, and a moderate to large pericardial effusion may occur.
The effusive-constrictive variant of pericarditis was first described in the 1960s. Hancock popularized this definition of a constrictive physiology with a coexisting pericardial effusion. 
In 2004, Sagrista-Sauldea et al reported on 15 subjects from Barcelona, Spain, who were identified as having effusive-constrictive pericarditis.  These individuals were among 190 consecutive subjects with clinical tamponade who underwent pericardiocentesis and concurrent catheterization. The etiologies of the effusive-constrictive pericarditis were infectious causes, irradiation, cardiac surgery, and idiopathic. Consistent with Hancock’s data, Sagrista-Sauldea reported that most cases were due to idiopathic factors.
The pericardium consists of 2 layers, a parietal layer and a visceral layer. The visceral pericardium is composed of 1 or 2 cell layers of mesothelial cells and adheres closely with the epicardium. The parietal pericardium is separated from the visceral pericardium by a small amount of fluid that serves as a lubricant. Any supraphysiologic accumulation of this fluid is identified as a pericardial effusion. [1, 2, 12, 13, 14] In general, a pericardial effusion should be evaluated to determine its etiology and hemodynamic significance.
Jugular venous and arterial pressures may be within the reference range, with or without signs of cardiac tamponade. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis is believed to evolve as part of a clinical continuum initiated by pericarditis or a pericardial effusion; thus, its etiologies mirror those of pericarditis, pericardial tamponade, and chronic constrictive pericarditis.
The hemodynamic definition of this syndrome is the continued elevation of right atrial, end-diastolic right ventricular, and left ventricular diastolic pressures after the removal of pericardial fluid returns the pericardial pressure to zero (or near zero). [1, 3, 11]
Recognition of effusive-constrictive pericarditis is clinically important because treatment with pericardiocentesis or a pericardial window may be inadequate; this is because neither treatment would address the visceral pericardium. Rather, a visceral pericardiectomy may be indicated for optimal therapy since it is the visceral pericardium that is constricting.
Importantly, however, not all cases of effusive-constrictive pericarditis progress to chronic constrictive pericarditis. In some clinical situations, relief from the effusion can be obtained by means of pericardiocentesis or a pericardial window, with medical treatment being used to manage the underlying condition. The constriction may be transitory and surgical pericardiectomy may be avoided. These situations usually occur in the first months of a chronic effusion and close monitoring is required.
Although the symptoms of effusive-constriction are nonspecific, patients should be counseled to report any new or worsened dyspnea, ascites, weight loss or gain, peripheral edema, fever, or chest pain or pressure.
Constrictive pericarditis and cardiac tamponade both restrict filling of the cardiac chambers, thereby increasing systemic and pulmonary filling pressures. In tamponade, single forward flow occurs during systole (prominent x descent in atrial pressure tracings), whereas in constriction, a biphasic pressure tracing is greater during diastole (prominent y descent).
Patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis may have tamponade-like pressure tracings, which change to constrictive-like tracings after pericardiocentesis. This is because the visceral, rather than the parietal, pericardium is constrictive.
In rare cases, a loculated effusion may lead to constriction with regional tamponade of 1 or more cardiac chambers. Almost any form of chronic pericardial effusion has the potential to organize into an effusive-constrictive state even though the absolute number of cases is relatively low. 
A study by Ntsekhe et al found that in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusion, right atrial pressure and interleukin-10 (IL-10) levels were higher in those with effusive-constrictive pericarditis. The study included 68 patients with tuberculous pericardial effusion, 36 of whom had effusive-constrictive pericarditis. The investigators determined that the latter group had a right atrial pressure of 17.0 mmHg, versus 10.0 mmHg in the other patients, prior to pericardiocentesis. In addition, the serum and pericardial concentrations of IL-10 were 38.5 and 84.7 pg/mL, respectively, in the patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis, compared with 0.2 and 20.4 pg/mL, respectively, for the patients with nonconstrictive tuberculous pericardial effusion. 
Effusive-constrictive pericarditis may be part of a clinical continuum. Stages of infective pericarditis have been observed that range from acute pericarditis and tamponade with effusion to constrictive pericarditis without effusion. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis is likely a middle phase in this evolution. Therefore, suspicion for this entity should be high in cases of indolent, subacute pericarditis, as well in cases of chronic pericardial effusion.
Effusive-constrictive pericarditis likely occurs at any point along a clinical continuum that ranges from the occurrence of an effusion to the development of chronic pericardial constriction. Leading causes of effusive-constrictive pericarditis include the following:
Neoplasm – Most commonly lung, breast, or hematologic
Connective tissue disease
Cases of effusive-constrictive pericarditis in the United States are most often secondary to irradiation, cardiac surgery, uremia, or malignancy or are idiopathic.  In developing countries, the disorder is usually secondary to infectious causes (eg, tuberculosis).  In a prospective study of 1184 patients with pericarditis, Sagrista-Sauldea et al reported that 6.9% of 218 patients with tamponade had confirmed effusive-constrictive pericarditis. 
The disorder’s etiology can often be suspected from the clinical setting in which the effusion occurs. The differential diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis requires a consideration of all of the causes for pericardial effusions and pericardial tamponade and then a determination of whether a particular patient has constrictive physiology.
Mortality associated with effusive-constrictive disease is directly related to its etiology. For example, patients with metastatic carcinoma in the pericardial space usually have a prognosis that is much poorer than that of patients with postviral or idiopathic pericardial effusion with constriction. Noncardiac metastatic effusions are often end-stage, with reported mortality rates of 47% and 80% at 3 and 6 months, respectively.
Constrictive physiology increases the risk of morbidity in patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis, but no definitive statistics are available.
The most effective therapy for effusive-constrictive pericarditis is pericardiectomy with complete removal of the parietal and visceral membranes. However, the perioperative mortality rate for this procedure can be high. Indeed, only experienced surgeons should undertake visceral pericardiectomy. 
When visceral pericardiectomy is not chosen as the plan of care, the underlying disease may progress and cause recurrent and/or worsening effusive-constrictive syndrome or constrictive pericarditis.
Symptoms of effusive-constrictive pericarditis can be hard to interpret but may include atypical or typical chest pain, chest heaviness, or pressure. Other symptoms include dyspnea on exertion, fatigability, or peripheral edema.
Many patients are asymptomatic until the advanced disease stages. In more severe cases, impaired mental status may be evident as a result of decreased cardiac output.
Specific etiologies of effusive-constrictive pericarditis may have characteristic antecedent histories that can suggest pericardial disease (eg, tuberculosis, renal failure, malignancy, radiation therapy, cardiovascular surgery). 
Physical findings may exist on a continuum, including findings common with cardiac tamponade.  Findings may include hypotension, jugular venous distension, and diminished heart sounds (classic Beck triad). (The classic description of percussible cardiac dullness at the apex may be unreliable.)
Other common findings can include the following:
Pulsus paradoxus (paradoxical pulse)
Jugular venous pulse with a prominent x descent and absent y descent
Pleural effusion (in the absence of left-sided congestive signs)
Liver dysfunction and/or auscultation of a pericardial friction rub
Careful attention to all physical findings is required to find clues to the underlying etiology of the pericardial disease.
Because effusive-constrictive pericarditis is rare, the differential diagnosis is guided by few published series and case reports. Differentials to consider include the following:
Immunocompromised states with infection
Connective tissue disease
Penetrating chest trauma
Laboratory studies for effusive-constrictive pericarditis include tests of serum complete blood count (CBC) with differential and serum chemistries, with additions depending on the suspected etiology.
The most important laboratory studies are those performed on pericardial fluid (always under the assumption that pericardiocentesis is clinically indicated). The following tests should always be sent on an initial pericardiocentesis  :
Hematocrit and cell count with differential
Culture – Including tuberculosis
Enzymes – Lactate dehydrogenase, adenosine deaminase
The need for other, more specific laboratory tests, including the following, is determined by the priorities of the differential diagnosis:
Suspected tuberculous pericarditis – Purified protein derivative (PPD) of tuberculin, appropriate staining of pericardial fluid
Suspected infectious pericarditis – Serum aerobic and anaerobic blood cultures, viral titers, or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay of pericardial fluid
Suspected malignancy – Pericardial fluid for tumor markers or carbohydrate antigens (CAs; eg, CA-125)
Suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pericarditis – Serum HIV testing
Suspected hypothyroid-related pericarditis – Serum thyroid function testing
Suspected connective tissue disease – Serum connective tissue serologies
The chest radiograph may consistently show an enlarged cardiac silhouette when the pericardial effusion is greater than 250mL. The cardiac silhouette may be flask shaped and the lung fields may show no evidence of congestion, consistent with the absence of a congestive cardiomyopathy. 
These findings must be interpreted with caution, as they may also be observed in severe aortic insufficiency, congestive heart failure with severe tricuspid insufficiency, severe volume overload, and mitral regurgitation. The distinguishing characteristic is pulmonary vascular congestion, which may be present with any of these conditions and is usually absent in pericardial disease.
A small effusion may have a normal cardiac silhouette, but this does not eliminate the diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis.
Echocardiography is the most efficient way to detect an effusion because it has excellent sensitivity and specificity. [18, 23, 24] Pericardial fluid is easily observed as an echolucent region (echo-free space) between the visceral pericardium (epicardium) and the parietal pericardium.
The size of the effusion may be estimated, even if the effusion is localized. For example, small effusions usually must be observed in 2 views, particularly behind the left ventricle. Moderate effusions are visualized circumferentially, and large effusions exceed 1cm in thickness on all views.
Doppler investigation may demonstrate increased respiratory variation of mitral and tricuspid inflow, consistent with constrictive pericarditis. Other echocardiographic findings consistent with constrictive pericarditis include abnormal septal and posterior wall motion, noted in the M-mode by using a parasternal short-axis view; a normal velocity of propagation (V p) in color M-mode; and a normal or supranormal early relaxation (Ea) on tissue Doppler imaging.
Echocardiography can also be used to distinguish a pericardial effusion from a pleural effusion, with pericardial effusions being anterior to the descending aorta.
In addition, evidence for cardiac tamponade may be inferred from an echocardiogram. For example, early diastolic collapse of the right ventricular free wall and/or late diastolic collapse of the right atrium may be observed.
The diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis cannot be made primarily on the basis of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan findings. However, CT scanning and MRI may provide excellent images of the pericardium and associated mediastinal structures.
CT scanning and MRI can be used to effectively image and confirm a thickened pericardium or detect a pericardial effusion if visualization with echocardiography is suboptimal. However, some patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis have normal pericardial thickness; in such cases, the disease must be diagnosed hemodynamically.
The use of18 F-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scanning has been reported for the assessment of pericardial inflammation. The clinical use of PET imaging in effusive-constrictive pericarditis remains untested. 
An electrocardiogram (ECG) may not show any specific findings for effusive-constrictive pericarditis. However, the ECG may show changes in the ST segment, T wave, or PR segment and/or demonstrate low QRS voltage associated with pericarditis and/or effusion. Nonspecific ST- and T-wave abnormalities may be present.
With a large effusion, a cardiac rocking motion may be observed on the ECG as electrical alternans.
Pericardiocentesis as a diagnostic test may have a low yield, yet as a therapeutic procedure its diagnostic benefit is much improved. The risks and benefits of any invasive procedure must be considered before the start of testing.
Clinical circumstances determine when a biopsy is performed since procedural risk is increased. Factors include how symptomatic the patient is and how likely a finding would change clinical management.
Pericardioscopy is a developing technique that allows direct viewing of the epicardium with the possibility for biopsy. This is currently an experimental technique. 
Pericardial biopsy samples may be examined for malignancy and inflammation by traditional and immunohistologic means. In advanced laboratories, PCR assay or in situ hybridization may be used to analyze for microbial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA). Combined examination of pericardial fluid and biopsy results provides the greatest yield.
The diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis may be suspected clinically, but it is definitively established by recording right heart and intrapericardial pressures before and after pericardiocentesis. 
Before pericardial fluid is removed, cardiac tamponade (or near tamponade) hemodynamic physiology must be present to make the diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis. Hemodynamic pressure recordings will indicate that intrapericardial pressures, right atrial pressure, and end-diastolic right and left ventricular pressures are elevated and equal (or nearly equal). There is usually an inspiratory decrease in right-heart filling pressures. A prominent x descent and an absent y descent may also be noted.
Pericardiocentesis should decrease intrapericardial pressure to zero but may fail to restore cardiac hemodynamics to normal. This is because the visceral constrictive component of the syndrome causes a persistent elevation and equalization of intracardiac diastolic pressures. This constrictive physiology unveils a biphasic pressure tracing in the right atrium, now with a prominent y descent and dip-and-plateau right ventricular pressure tracings, with absent or minimal respiratory variation.
Put another way, persistent constriction after pericardiocentesis suggests a constrictive visceral pericardium and, therefore, the diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis.
Because effusive-constrictive pericarditis is rare, intrapericardial pressures are not routinely measured during pericardiocentesis in clinical practice. This protocol may result in failure to recognize intrapericardial pressure as near zero. The consequences of this oversight include missing the diagnosis of effusive-constrictive pericarditis.
Although potentially curative therapy for hemodynamically compromising effusive-constrictive pericarditis requires surgical intervention, medical management directed at the underlying etiology may be effective, as dictated by clinical circumstances. However, no randomized, blinded clinical trials have been completed to guide medical therapy, which is primarily supportive.
Depending on putative etiology, steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, or antibiotics may be needed. 
Intravascular volume status must not be decreased excessively in the presence of tamponade physiology; diuretics must not be applied indiscriminately. On the other hand, after pericardial drainage, diuretics may be useful with constrictive physiology and evidence of volume overload.
Pericardiocentesis or surgical drainage of the effusion is performed as dictated by the patient’s clinical situation. These procedures are undertaken in circumstances of tamponade or hemodynamic compromise or when a purulent effusion is suspected, as well as in cases in which there is a large, persistent effusion or diagnostic uncertainty exists. 
The most effective therapy for effusive-constrictive pericarditis is pericardiectomy, with complete removal of the parietal and visceral membranes. The perioperative mortality rate for this procedure can be high. Surgery can be risky and requires considerable thought before it may be recommended. Difficulties include the length of the procedure, infection potential, morbidity secondary to the wide exposure required, other medical problems that are often present in these patients, and the technical expertise required to perform the surgery.
In patients who may have a high mortality risk with thoracotomy yet have a significant chance of effusion recurrence with needle drainage alone, a pericardial-peritoneal window is an effective treatment for recurrent pericardial effusions. 
If hemodynamic compromise is possible, inpatient care is required to monitor the patient. Moreover, necessary pericardial procedures usually involve hospitalization.
Transfer is required when necessary diagnostic or therapeutic modalities such as echocardiography, pericardiocentesis, or cardiothoracic surgery are not available at the treating facility.
The priorities of outpatient care reflect the treatments required for specific etiologies and include monitoring patients for signs of worsening constrictive physiology or for the development of cardiac tamponade.
In general, patients are given maintenance therapy with a diuretic to maintain euvolemia. Other medications depend on the specific etiology being treated.
A cardiologist can assist with echocardiographic interpretation, pericardiocentesis, and invasive hemodynamics. A cardiothoracic surgeon may help when a pericardial window or pericardiectomy is being considered.
In complicated cases, such as those involving tuberculous pericarditis or purulent uremic pericarditis, multidisciplinary involvement may be required. Specialists in infectious disease, nephrology, cardiology, and/or cardiothoracic surgery may be consulted.
No specific dietary changes are recommended. However, patients with effusive-constrictive pericarditis often have chronic underlying diseases for which adequate nutrition is especially important. Moreover, euvolemia is a goal, and salt restriction may be indicated.
The patient’s activities are generally limited by the underlying disease or the decreased cardiac output that may occur with effusive-constriction, but no specific activity prohibitions exist.
Goldstein JA. Cardiac tamponade, constrictive pericarditis, and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2004 Sep. 29(9):503-67. [Medline].
Little WC, Freeman GL. Pericardial disease. Circulation. 2006 Mar 28. 113(12):1622-32. [Medline].
Hancock EW. Subacute effusive-constrictive pericarditis. Circulation. 1971 Feb. 43(2):183-92. [Medline].
Hoit BD. Management of effusive and constrictive pericardial heart disease. Circulation. 2002 Jun 25. 105(25):2939-42. [Medline].
Lorell BH. Pericardial diseases. Brunwald E, ed. Heart Disease. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997. 1496-505.
Troughton RW, Asher CR, Klein AL. Pericarditis. Lancet. 2004 Feb 28. 363(9410):717-27. [Medline].
Spodick DH, Kumar S. Subacute constrictive pericarditis with cardiac tamponade. Dis Chest. 1968 Jul. 54(1):62-6. [Medline].
Cameron J, Oesterle SN, Baldwin JC, Hancock EW. The etiologic spectrum of constrictive pericarditis. Am Heart J. 1987 Feb. 113(2 Pt 1):354-60. [Medline].
Hancock EW. A clearer view of effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 29. 350(5):435-7. [Medline].
Maisch B. Pericardial diseases, with a focus on etiology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, new diagnostic imaging methods, and treatment. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1994 May. 9(3):379-88. [Medline].
Sagrista-Sauleda J, Angel J, Sanchez A, et al. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis. N Engl J Med. 2004. 350(5):469-75. [Medline].
Wood P. Chronic constrictive pericarditis. Am J Cardiol. 1961 Jan. 7:48-61. [Medline].
Spodick DH. The Pericardium: A Comprehensive Textbook. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1997. 260-452.
Shabetai R. Pericardial Disease: Etiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical Recognition, and Treatment. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1995. 1024-35.
Ntsekhe M, Matthews K, Syed FF, et al. Prevalence, hemodynamics, and cytokine profile of effusive-constrictive pericarditis in patients with tuberculous pericardial effusion. PLoS One. 2013. 8(10):e77532. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Rafailidis PI, Prapas SN, Kasiakou SK, Costeas XF, Falagas ME. Effusive-constrictive calcific pericarditis associated with Streptococcus salivarius. Case report and review of the literature. Cardiol Rev. 2005 May-Jun. 13(3):113-7. [Medline].
Fowler NO, Manitsas GT. Infectious pericarditis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1973 Nov-Dec. 16(3):323-36. [Medline].
Zagol B, Minderman D, Munir A, D’Cruz I. Effusive constrictive pericarditis: 2D, 3D echocardiography and MRI imaging. Echocardiography. 2007 Nov. 24(10):1110-4. [Medline].
Kolek M. Effusive-constrictive pericarditis post surgical revision for iatrogenic hemopericardium. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011 Mar. 155(1):71-4. [Medline].
Akhter MW, Nuño IN, Rahimtoola SH. Constrictive pericarditis masquerading as chronic idiopathic pleural effusion: importance of physical examination. Am J Med. 2006 Jul. 119(7):e1-4. [Medline].
[Guideline] Maisch B, Seferovic PM, Ristic AD, Erbel R, Rienmüller R, Adler Y. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases executive summary; The Task force on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2004 Apr. 25(7):587-610. [Medline].
Okayama S, Soeda T, Seno A, Watanabe M, Nakajima T, Uemura S, et al. Rare concurrence of apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and effusive constrictive pericarditis. Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2011. 5:99-102. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Veress G, Feng D, Oh JK. Echocardiography in pericardial diseases: new developments. Heart Fail Rev. 2013 May. 18(3):267-75. [Medline].
Feigenbaum H, Armstrong W. Pericardial diseases. Feigenbaum’s Echocardiography. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2004. 260-9.
Ha JW, Lee JD, Ko YG, Yun M, Rim SJ, Chung N. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Assessment of pericardial inflammation in a patient with tuberculous effusive constrictive pericarditis with 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2006 Jan 3. 113(1):e4-5. [Medline].
Maisch B, Pankuweit S, Brilla C, et al. Intrapericardial treatment of inflammatory and neoplastic pericarditis guided by pericardioscopy and epicardial biopsy: results from a pilot study. Clin Cardiol. 1999 Jan. 22(1 Suppl 1):I17-22. [Medline].
Park GM, Lee JY, Kim YG, Boo SJ, Song JM, Kang DH, et al. Recurrent postoperative effusive-constrictive pericarditis associated with steroid discontinuation. J Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2009 Sep. 17(3):102-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Olson JE, Ryan MB, Blumenstock DA. Eleven years’ experience with pericardial-peritoneal window in the management of malignant and benign pericardial effusions. Ann Surg Oncol. 1995 Mar. 2(2):165-9. [Medline].
Olsen PS, Sorensen C, Andersen HO. Surgical treatment of large pericardial effusions. Etiology and long- term survival. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1991. 5(8):430-2. [Medline].
D Dirk Bonnema, MD Physician, Department of Cardiology, Mercy Health
D Dirk Bonnema, MD is a member of the following medical societies: South Carolina Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Terrence X O’Brien, MD, MS, FACC Professor of Medicine/Cardiology, Director, Clinical Cardiovascular Research, Medical University of South Carolina College of Medicine; Director, Echocardiography Laboratory, Veterans Affairs Medical Center of Charleston
Terrence X O’Brien, MD, MS, FACC is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Failure Society of America, South Carolina Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Richard A Lange, MD, MBA President, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Dean, Paul L Foster School of Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Ronald J Oudiz, MD, FACP, FACC, FCCP Professor of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Director, Liu Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, Division of Cardiology, LA Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
Ronald J Oudiz, MD, FACP, FACC, FCCP is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, and American Thoracic Society
Disclosure: Actelion Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Encysive Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Gilead Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Pfizer Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; United Therapeutics Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Lilly Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; LungRx Clinical Trials + honoraria; Bayer Grant/research funds Consulting
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment
Eric Vanderbush, MD, FACC Chief, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Harlem Hospital Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Cardiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
The authors and Medscape Reference would like to acknowledge the support of the Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service, Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Gazes Cardiac Research Institute, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina in the writing of this article.
Research & References of Effusive-Constrictive Pericarditis|A&C Accounting And Tax Services