Free
Correspondence  |   June 2004
A 4.42% Reduction in the Cross-sectional Area of a Jugular Vein Cannot Result in Doubling of the Intracranial Pressure
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Leila Khorasani, M.D.
    *
  • * University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   June 2004
A 4.42% Reduction in the Cross-sectional Area of a Jugular Vein Cannot Result in Doubling of the Intracranial Pressure
Anesthesiology 6 2004, Vol.100, 1625-1626. doi:
Anesthesiology 6 2004, Vol.100, 1625-1626. doi:
To the Editor:—  We read with interest the case report by Stocchetti et al.  1 entitled “Bilateral Cannulation of Internal Jugular Veins May Worsen Intracranial Hypertension.” We agree with the authors’ hypothesis that bilateral cannulation of the internal jugular veins with large-bore catheters in patients with increased intracranial pressure (ICP) and limited buffering capacity of the intracranial system may cause an additional increase in the intracranial volume and hence ICP. We disagree, however, that their case report supports this hypothesis.
The authors describe a head-injured trauma patient with increased ICP to 30 mmHg. A 16-gauge catheter had been placed retrograde in the bulb of the right internal jugular vein. After placement of an 8-French introducer into the left internal jugular vein, a pulmonary artery (PA) catheter of unspecified size was inserted. With the patient supine, the ICP increased to more than 50 mmHg. After removal of the introducer, leaving the PA catheter in place, the ICP suddenly decreased to previous levels.
Although an increase in resistance of the jugular vein may theoretically result in an increase in ICP, we disagree with the authors that their case report illustrates this concept. To unequivocally prove this, the authors should have measured jugular venous pressure proximal to the insertion site both before and after the insertion of the catheters and shown a significant increase in jugular venous pressure after their insertion. Only then could they relate the increase in ICP to the obstruction of blood flow secondary to an increase in jugular venous resistance due to the presence of the catheters.
The authors believe the cause of the increase in ICP after insertion of the 8-French introducer (and a PA catheter of unspecified size) and the subsequent reduction of ICP after removal of the introducer (leaving the PA catheter in place) was solely related to the large size of the introducer. An increase in resistance in a blood vessel after the insertion of a catheter is directly related to the degree of reduction of the axial cross-sectional area of the blood vessel (due to the presence of the catheter) and the length of catheter in the blood vessel. Seven French is the smallest size of PA catheter available in adults, which is not significantly smaller than an 8-French introducer. The axial cross-sectional area of an 8-French introducer is approximately 5.09 mm2versus  3.90 mm2for a 7-French PA catheter, a difference of 1.19 mm2. Furthermore, knowing that increasing the length of a catheter in a blood vessel results in increasing resistance to blood flow and considering the greater length of the PA catheter inside the vessel as compared with the introducer, the difference on the effect of increased resistance between the introducer and PA catheter becomes even more insignificant. Therefore, the authors should not have observed such a significant reduction in ICP after removal of the introducer while leaving the PA catheter in place.
The authors observed an increase in ICP to greater than 50 mmHg, which is approximately twice the value noted before the insertion of the introducer (fig. 1 in their published article).
Because cerebral blood flow remained constant according to the authors, the only remaining variable that could possibly explain the doubling of the ICP is a 50% reduction in the cross-sectional area of the internal jugular vein due to insertion of an 8-French introducer. Comparing the axial cross-sectional area of the left internal jugular vein (114.93 mm2) 2 and that of the introducer (5.09 mm2), one may expect an approximate 4.42% increase in resistance, and hence ICP, compared with baseline values when the introducer is placed into the vein. Considering bilateral drainage of cerebral blood, one would expect an even smaller increase in resistance, approximately half or 2.21%.
The authors state, “Leaving the Swan-Ganz catheter in place, we withdrew the introducer from the vein; the ICP suddenly decreased to previous values (fig. 1).” However, their figure 1 actually illustrates a reduction in the ICP after removal of the introducer to levels even lower than the baseline values of 20–30 mmHg into the range of less than 10 mmHg. There has been an inexplicable “overshooting” of the decrease in ICP greater than that which should have occurred by merely removing the introducer. Therefore, removal of the introducer cannot be the explanation for their observations. We believe their explanation is erroneous in that it falls short of providing adequate justification for the observed phenomena.
References
Stocchetti N, Longhi L, Valeriani V: Bilateral cannulation of internal jugular veins may worsen intracranial hypertension. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:1017–8
Cormio M, Robertson CS: Ultrasound is a reliable method for determining jugular bulb dominance. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2001; 13:250–4