CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Deneu, S.
Right arrow Articles by Deloof, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Deneu, S.
Right arrow Articles by Deloof, T.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 46, 983-986, Copyright © 1999 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society


ARTICLES

Catheter entrapment by atrial suture during minimally invasive port-access cardiac surgery

S Deneu, J Coddens and T Deloof
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Clinic of Cardiac Anesthesia, Onze Lieve Vrouw Clinic, Aalst, Belgium.

PURPOSE: The port-access approach allows surgeons to perform heart operations through small intercostal openings, or "ports". This technique requires new skills for anesthesiologists. A pulmonary artery venting (PAV) catheter and, in some cases, a coronary sinus catheter (for administration of retrograde cardioplegia) are positioned with the aid of fluoroscopy and transesophageal echography (TEE). Both catheters have a wider diameter than the more commonly used conventional PA catheter and present distinctive features. We report a case in which a pulmonary artery venting catheter was entrapped by a suture during a port-access procedure. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 35-yr-old man with severe mitral valve insufficiency was scheduled for valve repair. After a successful bypass procedure, resistance was felt while attempting to withdraw the PAV catheter. On fluoroscopy, fixation of the catheter at the heart level was established and perforation by suture was confirmed after injection of a contrast agent. Because of the risk of cardiac wall rupture and tamponade, the thorax was reopened. After release of some atrial sutures, the catheter could be withdrawn easily. Transfixion by a suture was confirmed by visual examination. CONCLUSION: The more frequent use of a PAV catheter in minimally invasive cardiac surgery with the port-access technique should remind the anesthesiologist of the higher risk of entrapment by surgical sutures. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of accidentally transfixing this catheter during closure of the atriotomy via the port.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.