Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Pulmonary embolism and infarction with a paradoxical thrombus visualised in both atria
  1. Hamza Zafar,
  2. Lisa Anderson,
  3. Andrew T Cox,
  4. Rachel Bastiaenen
  1. Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St Georges University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hamza Zafar, hummyhh{at}hotmail.com

Summary

A 59-year-old woman presented with a sudden onset of breathlessness and chest pain. An echocardiography and CT scan showed pulmonary embolism and infarction with a paradoxical thrombus visualised in both atria. For haemodynamically stable patients, the optimal management strategy is poorly defined. Three main strategies were considered: surgical thrombectomy, thrombolysis and anticoagulation. Surgery with reversal of anticoagulation may lead to further coagulation and increased risk of bleeding complications. The significant pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular infarction raised the prospect of difficult weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass following thrombectomy. Thrombolysis, which has significant mortality rate, and systemic embolisation including pulmonary infarction with haemorrhagic transformation were also contraindications. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted and anticoagulation was therefore believed to be the safest and effective approach. Here, the use of anticoagulation alone was fortunately successful but could as easily end in disaster. This approach should be considered the ideal paradigm to yield optimum outcomes.

  • cardiovascular medicine
  • venous thromboembolism

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.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All persons who meet the authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated in the concept, design, interpretation, drafting or revising the work. Furthermore, each author is in agreement to be accountable in ensuring questions leading to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work were investigated and resolved. Contributions of the authors in each specific category are as follows: Category 1: conception and design of study: HZ and ATC; acquisition of data: HZ; analysis and/or interpretation of data: RB and ATC. Category 2: drafting the manuscript: HZ and ATC. Category 3: approval of the version of the manuscript to be published: HZ, ATC, RB and LA.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

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