Constrictive Pericarditis and Restrictive Cardiomyopathy

  • Chun Pong Wong
  • Allan KleinEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Cardiology book series (CONCARD)


Constrictive pericarditis (CP) and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) are often discussed together, despite being different disease processes. Both diseases lead to diastolic dysfunction physiologically, but mechanisms are different; in CP, pathology lies in pericardium, while in RCM myocardium is the issue. Given the spectrum of disease and the various clinical manifestations of pericardial constriction and cardiac restriction, initial history and physical examination along with hemodynamic considerations and newer non-invasive imaging criteria now lead the way in making the diagnosis. However, when the findings from non-invasive imaging are inconclusive, invasive cardiac catheterization is still the gold standard for diagnosis. Using all available data in distinguishing between the two processes is important, as the treatment for each is very different.


Constrictive pericarditis Restrictive cardiomyopathy Diastolic dysfunction Ventricular interdependence Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) Global longitudinal strain (GLS) Computed tomography (CT) Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) Left and right heart catheterization 


  1. 1.
    Welch TD. Constrictive pericarditis: diagnosis, management and clinical outcomes. Heart. 2017; pii: heartjnl-2017-311683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd LJ, Elias H. Contribution to diseases to the heart and pericardium. Bull NY Med Coll. 1955;18:1–31.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elliott P, Andersson B, Arbustini E, et al. Classification of the cardiomyopathies: a position statement from the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(2):270–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muchtar E, Blauwet LA, Gertz MA. Restrictive cardiomyopathy genetics, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and therapy. Circ Res. 2017;121(7):819–37. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welch TD, Ling LH, Espinosa RE, et al. Echocardiographic diagnosis of constrictive pericarditis Mayo Clinic criteria. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(3):526–34. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016 Apr;29(4):277–314. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alraise MC, Kusunose K, Negishi K, et al. Relation between echocardiographically estimated and invasively measured filling pressures in constrictive pericarditis. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(11):1911–6. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ha JW, Oh JK, Ling LH, et al. Annulus paradoxus: transmitral flow velocity to mitral annular velovity ration is inversely proportional to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in patients with constrictive pericarditis. Circulation. 2001;104(9):976–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein AL, Abbara S, Agler DA, et al. American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with pericardial disease: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(9):965–1012.e15. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smiseth OA, Torp H, Opdahl A, et al. Myocardial strain imaging: how useful is it in clinical decision making? Eur Heart J. 2016;37(15):1196–207. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Urbano-Moral JA, Rowin EJ, Maron MS, et al. Investigation of global and regional myocardial mechanics with 3-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography and relations to hypertrophy and fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):11–9. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amaki M, Savino J, Ain DL, et al. Diagnostic concordance of echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance-based tissue tracking for differentiating constrictive pericarditis from restrictive cardiomyopathy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(5):819–27. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Talreja DR, Edwards WD, Danielson GK, et al. Constrictive pericarditis in 26 patients with histologically normal pericardial thickness. Circulation. 2003;108:1852–7. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sagrista-Sauleda J, Permanyer-Miralda G, Candell-Riera J, et al. Transient cardiac constriction: an unrecognized pattern of evolution in effusive acute idiopathic pericarditis. Am J Cardiol. 1987;59:961–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor AM, Dymarkowski S, Verbeken EK, Bogaert J. Detection of pericardial inflammation with late-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta A, Singh Gulati G, Seth S, et al. Cardiac MRI in restrictive cardiomyopathy. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(2):95–105. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maceira AM, Joshi J, Prasad SK, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in cardiac amyloidosis. Circulation. 2005;111(2):186e93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kondur AK, Li T, Vaitkevicius P, et al. Quantification of myocardial iron overload by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging T2∗ and review of the literature. Clin Cardiol. 2009;32(6):E55e9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Talreja DR, Nishimura RA, Oh JK, Holmes DR. Constrictive pericarditis in the modern era: novel criteria for the diagnosis in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(3):315–9. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyKhoo Teck Puat Hospital, National Healthcare GroupSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.The Miller Family Heart and Vascular InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations