Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Cardiothorac Surg ; 16(1): 226, 2021 Aug 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463257

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava thrombosis is cited to be a complication of inferior vena cava filter placement and post coronary artery bypass surgery. Often only mild symptoms arise from these thrombi; however, due to the chronic nature of some thrombi and the recanalization process, more serious complications can arise. Although anticoagulation remains the gold standard of treatment, some patients are unable to be anticoagulated. In this case, we present a 65-year-old male who underwent IVC filter placement and open-heart surgery who later developed extensive femoral and iliocaval thrombosis leading to right heart failure, which required thrombus extraction with an AngioVac suction device. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a 65-year-old male who presented with bilateral pulmonary emboli with extensive right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Upon investigation he had ischemic heart disease and underwent a five-vessel coronary artery bypass for which he had an IVC filter placed preoperatively. On post operative day 3 to 4, he was decompensated and was diagnosed with an IVC thrombus. He progressed to right heart failure and worsening cardiogenic shock despite therapeutic anticoagulation and was taken for a suction thrombectomy using the AngioVac (AngioDynamics, Latham, NY) aspiration thrombectomy device. The thrombectomy was successful and he was able to recover and was discharged from the hospital. CONCLUSION: Despite being a rare complication, IVC thrombosis can have detrimental effects. This case is an example of how IVC thrombus in the post-operative setting can lead to mortality. The gold standard is therapeutic anticoagulation but despite that, this patient continued to have worsening cardiogenic shock. Other therapies have been described but because of its rarity, they are only described in case reports. This case shows that the AngioVac device is a successful treatment option for IVC thrombus and can have the possibility of future use.


Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Shock, Cardiogenic/surgery , Thrombectomy , Vena Cava Filters/adverse effects , Vena Cava, Inferior , Venous Thrombosis/surgery , Aged , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Heart Failure/etiology , Heart Failure/surgery , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Pulmonary Embolism/surgery , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock, Cardiogenic/drug therapy , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Thrombectomy/instrumentation , Treatment Outcome , Vena Cava, Inferior/diagnostic imaging , Vena Cava, Inferior/surgery , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/etiology
2.
Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J ; 17(2): e33-e36, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335453

ABSTRACT

We present a case describing the use of the AngioVac system (AngioDynamics, Inc.) and SENTINEL™ cerebral protection system (SCPS; Boston Scientific) in a patient with COVID-19 who initially presented with a large deep-vein thrombosis of the left lower extremity, complicated by a pulmonary embolism. Although he initially improved with systemic alteplase, he later developed a second large clot diagnosed in transit in the right atrium. Within 12 hours from initial thrombolysis, this large clot wedged across an incidental patent foramen ovale (PFO), the atrial septum, and the cavotricuspid annulus. We emergently performed a percutaneous clot extraction with preemptive placement of the SCPS in anticipation of cardioembolic phenomenon. A large (> 10 cm) clot was extracted without complication, and the patient was discharged home. The combined use of SCPS and AngioVac in this case suggests a potential role for percutaneous treatment of severe and consequential thromboembolic disease, especially in patients with a PFO, and may be considered as an alternative and less-invasive option in patients with COVID-19. While cerebral embolic protection devices are approved for and widely used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures, there is a theoretical benefit for use in percutaneous thrombolectomies as well.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Endovascular Procedures , Pulmonary Embolism/therapy , Thrombectomy , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Embolic Protection Devices , Endovascular Procedures/instrumentation , Humans , Male , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Thrombectomy/instrumentation , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL