Importancia del Análisis Comparativo de Pericarditis Infecciosa, No Infecciosa y Sospechosa de Infección en Adultos : Estudio en Hospitales de Tercer Nivel en Guayaquil (2015-2023).

Abstract

Infectious pericarditis (IP) is a subclassification of acute pericarditis, defined as an inflammation of the pericardium caused by infectious agents, primarily bacteria, and to a lesser extent, viruses, fungi, or parasites. Although it is a poorly documented condition, its severity lies in its high morbidity and mortality if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Patients with infectious pericarditis often present with nonspecific symptoms such as fever, chest pain, and dyspnea, which can complicate diagnosis. Clinical suspicion is crucial for conducting appropriate diagnostic tests, including pericardial fluid analysis, microbiological cultures, and imaging techniques such as echocardiography. The prognosis of infectious pericarditis largely depends on the timeliness of diagnosis and treatment, as well as the presence of complications such as cardiac tamponade or constrictive pericarditis. Objective: To conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of patients with infectious pericarditis, non-infectious pericarditis, and suspected cases of infection in adults, to investigate the most frequent etiologies, the relationship between these groups of patients, determine the incidence of each type of pericarditis, and its associated factors. Methodology: This research work is cross-sectional, observational, retrospective, and analytical, as we analyze data from 225 patients between 2015 and 2023 from Teodoro Maldonado Carbo Hospital and Abel Gilbert Ponton Hospital, without our intervention. Our population includes more than 200 patients, both men and women, aged 20 to 60 years from Teodoro Maldonado Carbo Hospital and Abel Gilbert Ponton Hospital, who were hospitalized in the cardiology or adult observation area. Results: HTMC revealed that the etiological agent with the highest incidence is Mycobacterium tuberculosis, accounting for 42.85% of cases, compared to HAGP with an incidence greater than 70%. Conclusions: It was evident that both institutions, when optimizing resources and reducing complications from invasive methods, increase the margin of error in the correct comprehensive diagnosis and tend to overlap pericardial diagnoses, in addition to errors in coding the ICD-10.