You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Chest clinic
Pulmonary puzzles
A central venous catheter that revealed a vascular paradox
  1. Savvoula Savvidou,
  2. Entela Koco,
  3. Matthew Tsagourias,
  4. Dimitrios Matamis
  1. Department of ICU, ‘Papageorgiou’ General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
  1. Correspondence to Dr Savvoula Savvidou, ‘Papageorgiou’ General Hospital, Ring Road N.Efkarpia-Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 56402, Greece; ssavidou{at}med.auth.gr

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210210

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Clinical presentation

    A 60-year-old man with insignificant past medical history, was admitted to the intensive care unit with acute respiratory failure following community-acquired pneumonia. On admission, he was haemodynamically stable in sinus rhythm, febrile and neurologically intact with no focal neurological findings. Under mechanical ventilation, the ratio of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FiO2) was 100. An antibiotic regime of ceftriaxone plus moxifloxacin was administered.

    On day 6, a 3-lumen central venous catheter (CVC) (Arrow, 7 Fr x 20 cm, polyurethane radiopaque) was easily inserted into his left internal jugular vein using anatomical landmarks. Aspiration of blood from the distal tip of the catheter confirmed its intravascular placement; however, the sample’s bright red appearance strongly suggested it was ‘arterial’ in origin. Bedside B-mode ultrasonography excluded false cannulation of the carotid artery. Furthermore, connection of the CVC with a pressure transducer produced a venous waveform with low pressure. Blood gas analysis of the CVC sample returned a PaO …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed equally to the preparation of the manuscript; SS and EK reviewed the literature and planned the report, MT conducted the diagnostic investigation and provided the supporting images, DM with SS were responsible for the writing and the overall content as guarantors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.